On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM >> Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report >> As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19)) >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Dennis; >>> >>> >>> On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>> >>>> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by >>>> combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files. >>> >>> >>> We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from >>> the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as >>> reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more >>> systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files >> on >>>> a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because >> of >>>> additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary >> release. >>> >>> >>> It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2. >>> At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I >> would >>> prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't >>> mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it >>> exists. >>> >> >> My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE >> file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other >> licenses included in the release. NOTICES includes the Apache >> copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other >> licenses might state. >> >> And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache >> website,in the podling guide, etc. We did catch this until we put a >> RC up for a vote. > > > Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE > file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm > sure I both read and wrote some of it. Patches to make it clearer are > welcome. >
Well, escaped me initially on the ODF Toolkit project was that this information is buried under "best practices" and is a "should". But in practice this seems to be treated as a requirement and a "must". So an explicit suggestion? Sure. >> >>> >>>> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice >> should >>>> disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary >>>> information instead. >>>> >>>> >>> Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently >>> excluding a lot of files from that analysis. >>> >>> Pedro. >>
