RE: LICENSES Now I've come across this set of statements: "These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE document." ( http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices.) But maybe this is saying: Apache releases should contain a copy of each (3rd party) license, which is usually contained in the *3rd party* LICENSE document? (Rather than saying the notice should be in the Apache LICENSE document, which is what I thought at first. Can anyone shed light on this?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 2:54 PM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you very much for the details, Andy. I'm doing my best to come up to > speed on all this. > > A question: > In looking at the LICENSE files, and the Apache documentation ( > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice), I'm wondering about > the Taverna Language License, which contains several copyright notices. The > documentation I referenced says: "Use the NOTICE file to collect copyright > notices and required attributions." Am I misinterpreting this? Should these > copyright notices be in the NOTICE file? (Profuse apologies if this was > already discussed when I was less up-to-speed.) > > Gale > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 2:19 AM Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 27/02/16 23:33, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> > Use this thread to discuss any issues with RC5 which is currently >> > under VOTE. If needed we'll also make Jira issues. >> > >> > Under the corresponding [VOTE] thread - only reply with your vote, >> > e.g. "+1". It is a single vote for releasing all three artifacts at >> > once. >> > >> >> Releases are the high point a project. >> >> PPMC members - feel morally obliged to vote! >> >> Everyone else - help out - it's not "devs and users" - it's "community". >> >> Don't forget what really matters when you vote +1 is that the release >> meets the Apache requirements and then any additional local community >> norms. >> >> A quick and not complete summary of what a VOTE entails: >> >> ** Source >> >> The source artifact is the thing being released. >> Binaries and git are secondary. >> >> People voting must download the source artifact and check it. >> >> do the signatures on the source archive check out? >> does the commit id lead to the same sources? >> >> ** ASF licensing policy >> >> Much of this code being is released for the first time so LICENSE and >> NOTICE are mostly new. >> >> does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? >> is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact (both source >> and binary artifacts)? >> >> ** Build >> >> does the build of the source artifact actually produce the binaries? >> check the dependencies. >> >> ** Process >> >> Support the release manager! >> >> The minimum is 3 +1 votes with a majority in favour. >> The RM decides about what to do about comments. >> >> Does the quality level meet the group norms? >> ("can we live with it?" and not "is it perfect?") >> >> >> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >> >> Andy >> >>
