We interpreted it as it would be sufficient to add (references to) the other licenses in the existing LICENSE file - and we only add to NOTICE what requires to be in NOTICE (e.g. it already had a NOTICE file). We also interpreted copyright statements that are inline in the source files that they can then remain there and don't need to be moved to or replicated in NOTICE. So for taverna-language we now found there was no such third-party licenses left (most of what is at the end of LICENSE was previously in NOTICE).
This is good because it reduces the NOTICE maintenance load of down-stream users - but it means muddying the LICENSE which could then seem like "Apache License and/or/what? something else" rather than "just the Apache license". On 28 February 2016 at 23:02, 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 >>> >>> -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
