On Jun 4, 2013 4:22 AM, "ant elder" <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Simple as that. > > > > If only. > > This is the old "what goes in the NOTICE file" debate that has > probably caused more emails and confusion than any other topic here. > > My understanding of the current thinking on this is to only include > something in the NOTICE file when there is a clear legal requirement, > and that probably means some explicit documentation at ASF Legal for > the specific case (i.e raise a Legal JIRA asking). If any attribution > is required or wanted then its probably done by including the license > / copyright in the LICENSE file or the attribution should be added to > the README or to a separate CREDITS type file. There are numerous > discussions on this list about that and JIRA's like LEGAL-62 (wasn't > there a post from Roy once saying he'd have artifacts removed from the > distribution area if people had added random stuff to the NOTICE?). > > This "when in doubt leave it out" approach has gone a long way at > smoothing podling release reviews compared to the olden days.
Seriously? The inserted code uses our own license! Go look at 4(d) and tell me we should not insert a notice. It is both Right, and what is demanded by our own license. And this isn't some podling trying to figure shit out. This is some Incubator tooling that has explicitly incorporated third party code. We absolutely know third party code is there. We should provide notice. You guys are insane. This is dead simple, or it should be if you all would stop being bureaucratic, obstinate meddlers. -g
