On 11/22/2013 1:45 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote: > Sorry, correction. I did not mean to say: > "I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every > image used in DUCC." > > Instead > > "I thought I had to add attribution information to NOTICE for every image > used in DUCC." The requirement for attribution varies from license to license. For instance, the creative commons cc by 3.0 has an attribution clause. The creative commons cc 0 doesn't.
Some attributions are satisfied by the particular license. Others have a "general" license, with the required attribution going into the notice file. So, the answer is, it depends ... ;-) -Marshall > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <uim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, Spring notice was a cut and paste bug. >> >> I will remove all "This product includes ..." >> >> What about the images? Should I yank those too or change the wording to >> something else? >> I thought I had to add attribution information to LICENSE file for every >> image used in DUCC. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> wrote: >> >>> This file contains incorrect statements such as: >>> >>> This product includes software, Spring Framework, developed >>> at the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). >>> >>> (I don't think Spring was an Apache project...) >>> >>> See http://apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#overview-of-files where >>> it says, >>> under Bundling Other ASF Products, that >>> >>> It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software >>> developed at the Apache Software Foundation...", though the ASF copyright >>> line >>> and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation. >>> >>> -Marshall >>> >>
