On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
I've just been looking at the OASIS LICENSE and tidying the way that it's presented. I'll kick off a search but anyone know if we have OASIS artifacts anywhere else in the code base over and above sca-api and assembly-xsd? Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
