Hi, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > Summary: I still believe that the NOTICE file is the wrong place for >> listing included libs. It is for legal notices, only. >> > > This was a point from last RC and we don't seem to have got to consensus > yet. > > When I looked last cycle, I got to point where I think source inclusion > and binary bundling are handled differently: > > -- source inclusion > > http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice> > > I concluded that when it's included source code, if the whole source code > is used and that includes the copyright/license statement, it should be > left as-is and a pointer in LICENSE is sufficient. > > If, however, only part of the source code is used, or if it is not > correctly labelled with their BSD-style notice, then the full license goes > in LICENSE. Additionally, if there is a missing copyright, a copyright > statement goes in NOTICE (so there is no potential to believe it (c) > anything else). > > It depends on how each item is used in Marmotta which means each usage > needs checking as to how it's used. > > (I also trying to learn here - it's not something I'd had to deal with. > On Jena we had included BSD source fragments and bundled binaries only and > even then we have full license in LICENSE where we are shipping binaries > ourselves on the principle of being self-contained for the bytes in the > artifact.) > > -- binary bundling > > Sebastain came up [1] with the info: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#**permissive-deps<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps> > > when the binary artifact bundles BSD unchanged. > > Fabian, Sebastian, all - Does that agree with your understanding?
I agree with both Fabian and Andy. Fabian's point is documented in the guide "It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each addition places a burden on downstream consumers. Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required." [1]. So I think we need to check each of the dependencies using the aforementioned reasoning by Andy to see whether we need to include anything in the notice file for them i.e. whether they are correctly annotated with licence and copyright notices. I checked few like strftime.js, prototype.js, MigLayOut.java which don't seem to need anything additional in the notice file as "elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations." [1]. I think Sgvizler is bit tricky as it contains some files without licence headers and copyright notices. E.g. sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.geom.min.js sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.layout.min.js sgvizler/0.5/lib/d3.min.js So following Andy's advice it might be reasonable to add a note in the NOTICE to make sure that there is no potential to believe otherwise. And also may be in the licence, it might be worth adding a reference to those tiles like in [2]. So +1 to removing the additional stuff about dependencies when it not necessary. Best Regards, Nandana [1] - http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/guides/examples/LICENSE
