sijie commented on issue #888: Rework of binary distribution licenses URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/888#issuecomment-355804031 Copied a few notes from the legal-discussion email thread there: (Justin Mclean)**All bundle software licenses needs to be added to LICENSE [1] you can include ALv2 license software if you want. If an bundled ALv2 software includes a NOTICE file you need to look at that and move parts of it to your NOTICE file [3] but try to keep it as simple as needed and not add anything that s not required.** > do we need to include `Webbit` license (since it is BSD) in Hadoop's distribution? or we don't have to include `Webbit` license, since it is bundled in Netty and mentioned in Netty's notice file. (Justin Mclean)**Yep you need to include anything that is bundled. [1] If any of the course code from Webbit ends up in a release then yes the BSD license should be added to the release?s LICENSE file. [2] There is no need to have it mentioned in NOTICE as Hadoop have done. [3]** > Using Hadoop as a model for constructing your own LICENSE and NOTICE files is not a bad idea. (Justin Mclean)**It looks to me that the Hadoop NOTICE file contains far too much information, and while this is not a licensing error, it best to keep the NOTICE as short as possible [1] as it can effect downstream projects. Permissive licenses such as MIT and BSD should not be mentioned in NOTICE. [2] it also looks like too many copyright lines have been added there (a common mistake), only relocated copyright lines should be mentioned or lines from other ALv2 NOTICE files. [3]** (Justin Mclean)**Generally NOTICE doesn?t contain copyrights as they are part of the license text and should go in (or be pointed at) by LICENSE. Attributions also do not belong in a NOTICE file and also go in LICENSE. Only relocated headers [4], contents of upstream ALv2 NOTICE files [5], and required 3rd party notices that don?t belong in license [6] need to be in NOTICE.** **The third inclusion is uncommon and would apply to licenses that have clauses that state you must link to the original source code or state that changes has been made to the original source code need to be listed. An advertising clause (if it wasn?t Category X) would also be placed in NOTICE.** **I covered this in detail a few times in a talk I?ve given at ApacheCon. It's was recorded at ApacheCon Miami and may help people in this thread. [7]** 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice 4. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 6. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0-lp1t9ee0
---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] With regards, Apache Git Services
