The LICENSE and NOTICE from NIFI look good to me for the source artifact: https://github.com/apache/nifi
The LICENSE and NOTICE for the NIFI bundle also look good to me: https://github.com/apache/nifi/tree/master/nifi-assembly HTH, Paul. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:43 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > Most projects should be the same. I am most familiar with Groovy and > believe it is done correctly there. Gradle is used for building which might > make it harder to mimic given NLPCraft is using maven. I'll take a quick > look at some others ... > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:53 PM Aaron Radzinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Paul, >> Can you point to some ASF project(s) that has done it right? I've looked >> at several and they all seem to be doing differently... >> >> Thank you, >> -- >> Aaron Radzinski >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:21 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Another important concept is that for any artifact, the included >>> NOTICE/LICENSE should be the minimum required for that artifact (or >>> instead >>> of thinking it as the minimum, think just accurately specified for that >>> artifact). >>> >>> So, the list you provide would possibly be appropriate for a zip >>> distribution, assuming that is desirable. If that is needed, I'd change >>> the >>> wording from: >>> "NLPCraft project uses or integrates with the following 3rd party >>> software >>> (binary dependencies) that is licensed under non-Apache License 2.0" >>> to something like: >>> "This NLPCraft distribution bundles 3rd party binary dependencies that >>> are >>> licensed as outlined below." >>> >>> In general, the source distribution LICENSE would not need (and therefore >>> should not have) those entries listed. >>> >>> A binary jar artifact suitable for publishing in a repo, assuming one is >>> needed, would also not need most (if not all) of those entries. The >>> LICENSE >>> and NOTICE pertain to the artifact itself not listed dependencies (which >>> will already contain their own LICENSE/NOTICE info). >>> >>> I'd also expect in general modifications to the NOTICE file. It would >>> include any copyright notice sections from even ASF2 licensed >>> dependencies >>> which aren't specifically "copyright ASF", e.g. might be individuals. In >>> addition, if any of the third party licenses request some kind of >>> acknowledgement, that would go in the NOTICE file(s). >>> >>> Cheers, Paul. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 10:58 AM Aaron Radzinski < >>> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Paul, Roman, et. al., >>> > I've listed non-ASF2.0 licenses for our dependencies here: >>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/LICENSE >>> > >>> > Please review and let me know if this passes the muster. >>> > >>> > Thank you, >>> > -- >>> > Aaron Radzinski >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:48 PM Aaron Radzinski >>> > > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > Mentors, >>> > > > I'm confused on how to (and why) list licenses for all project's >>> > > > dependencies. To do it explicitly is a major time sink and it's >>> very >>> > hard >>> > > > to maintain it this way going forward. How do projects approach >>> this in >>> > > an >>> > > > automated way? Will this be enough to provide an Apache RAT report? >>> > > >>> > > It depends on what you want to distribute. There are two artifacts >>> that >>> > > you can >>> > > distribute: >>> > > #1 source code tarball >>> > > #2 binary convenience archives (of any kind) >>> > > >>> > > For both your downstream consumers have know *exactly* what licenses >>> > > are covering: >>> > > #1 every single line of code in every file >>> > > #2 every single bit >>> > > >>> > > Now, #1 is somewhat easier since all the new code is going to be >>> licensed >>> > > under ALv2. Still, there will be cases when you (or your build >>> system) >>> > > statically pulls source code in that ends up in your release source >>> > tarball >>> > > that wasn't developed by you and is available under a different >>> license. >>> > > That has to be tracked very, very carefully. >>> > > >>> > > In fact, that is exactly why a lot of downstream consumers trust ASF >>> > > (that we won't subject them to anything by ALv2 compatible licenses) >>> > > and don't trust a random GH project where somebody simply slapped >>> > > an ALv2 license on their repo. >>> > > >>> > > As for #2 -- this is where the hell typically breaks lose and that's >>> > where >>> > > you either do the same good job you do with #1 (there are not >>> > > shortcuts -- sorry) >>> > > >>> > > OR >>> > > >>> > > You simply decide NOT to release binary artifacts and make them >>> > > responsibility of somebody else. A typical example of somebody >>> > > else would be a Linux Distribution company. >>> > > >>> > > Or it can even be yourself with your individual's hat on -- it just >>> can >>> > NOT >>> > > be ASF unless we can do the same due diligence we do for #1. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Roman. >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
