I've made pretty good progress with the notice/license file, but not quite done. Could I ask that Matt/others take a look at what I have so far to be sure that I'm on the right track:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/NOTICE.txt https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/LICENSE.txt If so, I will complete with the pattern than I'm following. I will say that if it is confirmed that I am doing this right, very few other projects are doing it right. that would include some very big named projects. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:01 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Matt, your advice was a big help in getting me going. Hopefully, I can > get > > this all pretty close to your expectations by the time I'm done. A > couple > > of follow up questions: > > > > 1. What do I do with dual-licensed stuff? Do i just choose the favorable > > license and list it under that section? > > > > Choose the appropriate license and include that one. If you want to be > especially thorough, you can note that the lib was dual licensed next to > the name in the license file e.g. > > com.x.y.z.foo (Dual Licensed, chose ASLv2) > > > > 2. Does the NOTICE just need the copyright information? Like, BSD seems > to > > indicate that I need to preserve the copyright, but i have the entire BSD > > license with copyright in LICENSE already - do i need just the copyright > > in > > NOTICE? or do i satisfy things by simply including the entirety of the BSD > > license in our LICENSE file? or am i just overthinking at this point? :) > > > > NOTICE just needs the copyright information. LICENSE should have the full > text, including the copyright. That is the best way I have seen to meet > the license requirement > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephen > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mentors, > > > > > > > > In preparation for release, I wanted to try to get the LICENSE and > > NOTICE > > > > files looking good. I read the information i could find on the > Apache > > > site > > > > and studied the files of other Apache projects that have done > releases > > > and > > > > I can only say that after all that I'm still confused. I just don't > > see > > > a > > > > clear pattern for producing these files that I can follow. > > > > > > > > Could someone please provide some advice on what is expected here? > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, it is more art than science on the NOTICE. Here are the > > > general guidelines I follow (and look for) > > > > > > 1) Different NOTICE/LICENSE files for source and binary distributions. > > The > > > source distribution should ONLY contain entries for CODE that has been > > > integrated from 3rd parties, IE if you pulled a class in from some > other > > > project. The binary files need to have relevant entries for ANY > > dependency > > > included in the distribution, in addition to the code entries. > > > > > > 2) NOTICE files should only contain entries for binaries/code where the > > > license specifically asserts that a copyright statement be included > > beyond > > > the license. > > > > > > 3) LICENSE files should be organized such that one copy of identical > > > license text exits and a list of libraries/classes that are licensed > > under > > > it are listed IE > > > > > > x,y,z dependencies are licensed under the following: > > > > > > <license text> > > > > > > 4) BSD and MIT style licenses are often modified to include specific > text > > > from the licensor. These will need to have individual copies. #3 is > > only > > > for IDENTICAL licenses, such as the ASL v2, EPL, CDDL, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > >
