On May 21, 2010, at 2:19 AM, ant elder wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> 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 >>> >> >> Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that notices from >> underlying dependencies (3rd party, etc) needs to be listed in the >> NOTICE file, and in the case of jsonrpc.js, we could remove it from >> the original source file if permitted by it's license, but we should >> have it in the notice. >> > > Why should we have it in our NOTICE? Is there anything in any ASF doc > that you can find that says we should do that? And whether or not the > point about notices from underlying dependencies is correct in this > jsonrpc.js case the dependency it originally came from doesn't have > any notices.
Only *required* attributions should be in the NOTICE file. So, unless the LICENSE of the artifact requires attribution, it shouldn't be included in the NOTICE. You should try to move any source copyright statements into the NOTICE file (and remove from the source). However, only the copyright holder can do that (or give you permission). Otherwise, copyright should stay where it is. --kevan
