On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:49 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Reviewing the legal files for the M5 release and there is lots of >>> stuff in the NOTICE file which I think we don't actually need and >>> having it there makes it hard to see through all the noise to verify >>> that we do have what is need. Past practice has been to add a >>> copyright statement to the NOTICE file from any dependency license >>> which included one but that is not what the ASF policy is and this has >>> been clarified in varrious discussion around the ASF including this >>> from VP of Legal - >>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/u66o5ucyfquxjl7i. Looking at whats >>> there I can't see many that we really do need so I'd like to remove >>> all the unnecessary ones to make it clearer what the required notices >>> really are and that we do actually include them. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> I'm +1 on cleaning up what is NOT supposed to be there... By having a >> quick look at our Source distribution NOTICE file [1] and [2] they >> seem fine, unless there is notices for dependencies that are not >> current anymore. Maybe you could elaborate more on what you think it's >> not necessary on the current NOTICE files for 2.x trunk. >> >> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/NOTICE >> [2] >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/distribution/all/src/main/release/bin/NOTICE >> > > Ok, lets start with the minimum, which would be this (everything > between the ---): > > --- > Apache Tuscany > Copyright (c) 2005 - 2010 The Apache Software Foundation > > This product includes software developed at > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > --- > > What else needs to be in the file other than just that? I'm suggesting > nothing else is needed, and that all the stuff we have in there now is > not actually required by any legal requirement, license, or ASF > policy. > > Eg take the thing that comes next in the current file which is a > section about jsonrpc.js - there's no need for that as the copyright > is in the actual source file still and it should only be in the NOTICE > file if we delete the copyright from the jsonrpc.js file (which we > would only do with the permission of the copyright holder). This is > describe in point 2 at > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice. > > ...ant >
+1 for clean up. Looking at the referenced thread it seems that the change being discussed is to not automatically include copyright statements in the NOTICE file if that copyright would simply serve to repeat information that is already present in the LICENSE as part of a license or is not expressly required to be called out by the license. So I think we need to take a little more care than just deleting stuff from the NOTICE file. - check that what license text is required in our license file and what it says - check that that text is actually correct, for example, I notice that in the bin/LICENSE file the copyright is omitted from the OASIS license text for some reason. - remove unnecessary information from the NOTICE file that is either not expressly required by the license or is expressly required but is already included in the license text in the LICENSE file. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
