Stephen My thoughts on this - and please bear in mind you are going to receive lots of conflicting opinions and advice any time this gets discussed - are as follows. Also please remember that IANAL.
NOTICE looks way too busy, it is for required notices only. You should not need to list out the Copyright statements for everything you depend on since most ALv2 compatible licenses don't contain attribution clauses that would require this. Usually it is sufficient to simply have text of the following form in the NOTICE file "Apache Tinkerpop depends on components with separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and conditions oftheir respective licenses. See the LICENSE file for a list of subcomponents and dependencies and their respective licenses." Secondly surely most of these things are binary dependencies only? As Matt already noted you should have a separate LICENSE and NOTICE for your source versus your binaries, most of what appears currently would appear to only apply to your binary and not your source. Unless Tinkerpop source code actively bundles other source code under other licenses then you should basically have nothing except the basic Apache License in LICENSE and the basic copyright notice in NOTICE. You are encouraged to create and maintain separate LICENSE and NOTICE for your binaries which should be placed elsewhere in the tree or named appropriately to distinguish them. For the LICENSE there is no need to list dependencies which are under the Apache License, it is reasonable to assume that if the component isn't explicitly called out that the main Apache License applies to it. You appear to have replicated the BSD license several times in the LICENSE file, I'm unclear if this is strictly necessary or not (whether the copyright notices require this) or if it is enough to just put the main license text once and list the components to which it applies Netty and NOTICE - The Netty NOTICE file is horrific and most of what is in their NOTICE file actually belongs in LICENSE in my opinion. If a project is external to the ASF do not assume that they are using the NOTICE file correctly as the ASF would. Note that I would wait to hear the other (possibly conflicting) opinions from other mentors before you do any substantial further work on this Rob On 02/04/2015 14:32, "Stephen Mallette" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
