Hi Fabian, thanks for the info. I think it is necessary to include notice for all bundled 3rd party libraries because of the "Source Access" condition. Either the source has to be included in the distribution, or the NOTICE file needs to include a pointer for each library where the source code can be found:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling Greetings, Sebastian 2013/3/26 Fabian Christ <christ.fab...@googlemail.com> > Hi, > > I did not have a look but I have seen many discussions about to > extensive NOTICE files. So I would like to stress that point. The > point is that this file is not meant to be a list of what is included. > Is is meant to hold extra information that some licenses require. So > this is only about legal aspects. This is not a file to give credit or > to be fair to authors of included software. > > If you want to express credits or just list everything that is > included, regardless of the license, to give people a complete > overview, I would suggest to create just another file and name it > INCLUDED-SOURCES or similar. > > So, just keep the NOTICE minimal and for legal aspects only. If your > included sources or binaries require a lot of NOTICE because of their > license, fine. Then the NOTICE just has to be extensive ;) > > Best, > - Fabian > > 2013/3/26 Sebastian Schaffert <sschaff...@apache.org>: > > Dear all (especially mentors), > > > > could you please have a look at the updated LICENSE and NOTICE files? I > now > > took a very different approach following more-or-less what Apache > Geronimo > > and Apache ODE are doing: > > - the NOTICE file contains attribution for all 3rd party software bundled > > in the respective distribution, a full copy of the 3rd party NOTICE file > > (if it exists), and a pointer to its source code > > - the LICENSE file contains a list of licenses (full-text) for reference > > > > I think this complies fully with the requirements detailled in > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html . The only issue might be that > it > > is too extensive. However, most licenses anyways require some form of > > attribution (especially also the Apache License), so it is easier to > > include all of them in the same way. In those cases where this is not > > strictly required, it is just fair towards the authors to mention them > > anyways :) > > > > The extensive NOTICE files will only be relevant in the binary > > distributions, because they bundle many 3rd party libraries. The source > > distribution NOTICE will only mention the Javascript and Java source > files > > that we include in our source tree. > > > > The purpose of this approach is as follows: > > > > if someone wants to use and redistribute one of the distributions, > > regardless whether it is the source or one of the binary distributions, > he > > needs to be aware of the copyrights of bundled libraries. So he can go to > > the NOTICE file and check there for any license that might conflict with > > his intentions. The NOTICE file mentions the copyright holders and > licenses > > of all the bundled software, as well as pointers to the respective source > > code repositories (to know where it comes from) and (in case it exists) > the > > content of the referred project's NOTICE file. In case he wants more > > details about the license, its full text can be looked up in the LICENSE > > file. > > > > Could you please check the following distributions at > > http://people.apache.org/~sschaffert/: > > - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip > > - apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-webapp.zip > > > > The -ldpath distribution is not yet updated (it will be mostly a subset > of > > the webapp). The -installer distribution is mostly the same as the > -webapp, > > but contains in addition Apache Tomcat and IzPack. I am currently > > uploading, so it might be available only in a few minutes. :) > > > > Greetings, > > > > Sebastian > > > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt >
