More on LICENSES Apache includes Creative Commons Attribution licenses in their "weak copyleft" list and (though I don't understand why) Apache suggests attaching "an appropriate and prominent label to the distribution ... for example in a README." (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). Should we have some kind of notice in the scufl2-wfdesc and robundle (etc.) README files that flags the embedded CCA licenses?
Also, I have yet to independently verify this, but I presume it was determined earlier that the oa.rdf (robundle) W3C CCLA license is okay, as well as the Open-document (robundle) OASIS license/notification. Thanks, Gale On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:02 PM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>>
