Rob, glad it's looking better. I'll have to correct that little copy/paste problem. Thanks for pointing that out.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen > > That looks much better to me but no promises that others might disagree > > Only issue I still see is that in the two LICENSE files with other > licenses the BSD style licenses section says "he Apache TinkerPop project > bundles the following components under the Apache 2.0 License:" which is > just a simple copy paste error > > Rob > > On 03/04/2015 18:39, "Stephen Mallette" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Thanks for the link David - I'd seen that before actually. It never fully > >made sense to me until I had the feedback from Rob and Matt. I also > >finally found a pattern from an Apache project that seems to match what > >Rob/Matt have been trying to tell me so I've used that for a model in what > >I have now. So....i have separate source and binary license/notice now. > >My source license/notice are as described in my last email and i have two > >sets of binary notice/license one set for gremlin-console and one set for > >gremlin-server. > > > >https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/LICENSE > >https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/NOTICE > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-console/ > >src/main/LICENSE > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-console/ > >src/main/NOTICE > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-server/s > >rc/main/LICENSE > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-server/s > >rc/main/NOTICE > > > >Anyway, I feel pretty good about these now that I have rectified all of > >the > >comments from Rob/Matt, tied that back to the link you sent and verified > >it > >all against a top-level Apache project. Hopefully, everyone will find what > >I have as satisfactory. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:54 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Take a look at this document; it has a how to, and is considered the > >> canonical document: > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > >> > >> --David > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > oh - i misread your post a bit (and i've misunderstood the notion of > >> source > >> > and binary LICENSE/NOTICE, since Matt introduced the concept - sorry > >> about > >> > that). let me try to rephrase: > >> > > >> > for our "source" LICENSE/NOTICE (lives at the root of the source tree > >>- > >> > i.e. where they are now) we will have: > >> > > >> > 1. The Apache License in LICENSE > >> > 2. This in NOTICE: > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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. > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > That's all we need for source NOTICE/LICENSE because "Tinkerpop source > >> code > >> > *does not* actively bundles other source code under other licenses" > >> > > >> > for the "binaries" NOTICE/LICENSE - i assume that refers to our "zip > >> > distribution". if so, i will add LICENSE/NOTICE to gremlin-server and > >> > gremlin-console (as only those two modules assemble zips) and these > >>would > >> > contain the dependencies more in the format of what i have now in the > >> > "source" LICENSE/NOTICE. > >> > > >> > If all that makes sense, then these would be the items to get > >> > more consensus on: > >> > > >> > 1. For the binary NOTICE can we drop the Netty NOTICE? I guess that is > >> not > >> > a rule for the NOTICE files of all non-ASF projects? isn't it safer to > >> just > >> > include such things since IANAL? By that same token, i assume that we > >> must > >> > include copies of NOTICE from all ASF projects. > >> > 2. For the binary LICENSE, there is some conflicting opinion between > >>Rob > >> > and Matt that could use resolution. Do I need to have multiple > >>copies of > >> > BSD licenses (i assume MIT is ok) in the LICENSE file just because of > >> > copyright differences? > >> > 3. For the binary LICENSE, I can remove direct list of Apache licensed > >> > dependencies because "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." - correct? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Stephen > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > > >> >> Well the work you done is still relevant for the LICENSE and NOTICE > >>for > >> >> your binary distribution though may require some trimming down > >> >> > >> >> To reiterate you should have separate LICENSE and NOTICE for your > >> binaries > >> >> because those will include different things to your pure source code > >> >> release. > >> >> > >> >> Rob > >> >> > >> >> On 02/04/2015 16:22, "Stephen Mallette" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >This statement: > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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 > >> >> > > >> >> >It seems to cut everything short for me. We don't bundle source > >>code > >> that > >> >> >I can think of. As such, all we need is: > >> >> > > >> >> >1. The Apache License in LICENSE > >> >> >2. This in NOTICE: > >> >> > > >> >> >--------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >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. > >> >> >--------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > > >> >> >Is that agreeable? Or are there conflicting opinions? > >> >> > > >> >> >If agreeable, i'm happy with that even though I did a lot of work > >>that > >> is > >> >> >up for the chopping block. Of course, that wasn't completely wasted > >> >> >effort > >> >> >- found two LGPL licensed products in our stuff that were being > >>pulled > >> in > >> >> >from other dependencies. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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 > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > >
