2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> > On 28/03/13 14:52, Sebastian Schaffert wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> thanks for pointing this out. Comments inline below: >> >> 2013/3/28 Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> >> >> Let's take a look at two examples; I think they need to handled >>> differently. >>> >>> == D3.js >>> >>> This is minimized and has no license statement. >>> >>> We don't want to imply it's Apache contributed code >>> >>> I believe this needs a entry in NOTICE. >>> >>> (an alternative might be to put a LICENSE/NOTCIE file in that directory - >>> not sure about that) >>> >>> >> Neither am I. I am already sufficiently confused with legal issues :) >> >> >> >>> == Sgvizler.pack.js >>> >>> This has a copyright license in the file so this is is definitely under >>> the >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/****licensing-howto.html#mod-****notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/**licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice> >>> <http://www.apache.org/**dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-**notice<http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice> >>> > >>> >>> "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations." >>> >>> >>> On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the NOTICE needs to contain >> pointers to the source code locations of 3rd party works: >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/**3party.html#labeling<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling> >> >> (see Source Access). >> >> The Source Access is the main reason why these entries are in the NOTICE >> file. >> > > Marmotta uses falls under "Source Included" > > (having a non-NOTICE file is possible as well) > > In the source distribution yes. But the binary distributions are actually causing me more headache. :-)
Would you say it is acceptable to follow the SOLR example? Sebastian
