Hi, For the source release, the NOTICE file looks good. I just checked the release you did last year, it looks like you only provide the source release, so it's OK. But for the POSSIBLE-NOTICES-FOR-BIN-DIST, it looks you put the all the third party License information into the NOTICE file. It's a common mistake. NOTICE is not supposed to hold the LICENSE information, if you are planing to do the binary release, you need to provide another version of License to hold the third party license information there.
Willem Jiang Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Adam Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the document, Willem. I have just read through it and have > some confusions here： > > > NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required > notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the > presence of licensing information embedded within the bundled dependency. > Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their > own, it is uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE. > > Copyright notifications which have been relocated from source files > (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However, elements such > as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need > not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their > original locations. > > It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each > addition places a burden on downstream consumers. > > Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required. > 1. I can’t figure out any special cases that we need modify NOTICE for src > release, so if the LICENSE file[1] is good for the src release， will a > clean NOTICE[2] be OK for src release ? > 2. I see why the POSSIBLE-NOTICES-FOR-BIN-DIST[3] file come in the > mailing thread[4], it is supposed to be used in binary release, should we > create another POSSIBLE-LICENSE-FOR-BIN-DIST file? For most of what's being > called out in NOTICE should actually be in LICENSE, but the last Weex > Release[5] which had passed voting was not including such file. > > Please give your comment, thanks! > > > [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- > weex.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=f44a8fd5d6e0d9fb2292f921ebbef8 > 424563f93d > [2] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- > weex.git;a=blob_plain;f=NOTICE;hb=f44a8fd5d6e0d9fb2292f921ebbef8424563f93d > [3] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- > weex.git;a=blob_plain;f=POSSIBLE-NOTICES-FOR-BIN-DIST;hb= > f44a8fd5d6e0d9fb2292f921ebbef8424563f93d > [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/636530863af603203bb3320a93b3f2 > 4e38bbeaf8a2cacb420f6f6734@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > [5] http://apache.org/dist/incubator/weex/0.12.0-incubating/ > > > > Thanks. > Adam Feng > > On 22 May 2018, 7:48 PM +0800, Willem Jiang <[email protected]>, > wrote: > > The LICENSE file looks good for the src release, but for the NOTICE is > not > > right. > > For the binary release, you need to provide another LICENSE file. Please > go > > through the document here[1]. > > > > [1]http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) > > http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese) > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Adam Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Willem > > > > > > Thanks for reminding. > > > > > > I’ve found the License[1] and Notice[2] files in Weex, and I’ll make > > > sure that all the dependencies are declared in these files. > > > > > > Is there anything we should notice about these two files? We’d like to > > > hear your advice about release sincerely before calling a VOTE on dev@ > . > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex/blob/master/LICENSE > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex/blob/master/ > > > POSSIBLE-NOTICES-FOR-BIN-DIST > > > > > > Thanks. > > > Adam Feng > > > > > > On 22 May 2018, 4:31 PM +0800, Willem Jiang <[email protected]>, > > > wrote: > > > > As we need to specify the license of the bundled third party jars. > > > > Please make sure we provides two License and Notice files for source > > > > release and binary release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willem Jiang > > > > > > > > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) > > > > http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese) > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > > > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Adam Feng <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Since the work of replacing Facebook’s Yoga has beed done, Let's > plan > > > our > > > > > second Apache release. > > > > > > > > > > I volunteer to take 'release manager' for this version (0.19), and > I'll > > > > > figure out how to release in Apache way. > > > > > > > > > > As we haven’t released for nearly 1 year, some work needs to be > > > confirmed > > > > > before releasing： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Make sure all the Yoga code have been deleted in master branch. > > > > > 2. Make sure no Category X[1] dependencies or Category B[1] source > > > code is > > > > > distributed. > > > > > 3. Make sure that NOTICE and LICENSE files are correct. > > > > > > > > > > I will start a [VOTE] about the release later this week. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Adam Feng > > > > > > > > >
