On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 23.03.2012 13:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 23.03.2012 12:47, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 23.03.2012 11:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I will have a look at the NOTICE and the LICENSE file - both located in >>>> main/ -, >>>> if there is something missing. >>>> >>>> Pedro already did a great job here - I am more or less expecting that >>>> everything >>>> is already covered in these files. >>>> >>>> If there is any input regarding its content, please provide the >>>> information here >>>> - Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> I will mainly assure that the notices and licenses of the current work >>>> regarding >>>> the RAT scan which results in certain entries in the rat-excludes are >>>> also >>>> covered in the NOTICE and LICENSE file. >>>> >>>> Help is very welcome here. >>>> Thus again, if you know of the one or the other 3rd party >>>> component/library/code, drop me a note. I will check, if these are >>>> reflected in >>>> these files. >>>> >>> >>> Before starting to work on these files I had a look at the corresponding >>> Apache >>> policies/rules/... regarding these files - [1], [2], [3] >>> >>> I have discovered [9] which more or less state that an entry into the >>> NOTICE >>> file is mostly not needed and depends on the specific license of the 3rd >>> party >>> component. >>> Having a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache httpd project >>> seems to >>> confirm this. >>> >>> Pedro, do you consider [9] when you did your hard work on the NOTICE >>> file? >>> >>> Mentors (and others too, of course), do you have certain advise what kind >>> of >>> wordings in a license makes an entry in the NOTICE file necessary? >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>> [2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>> [3] http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html >>> >>> [9] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices >>> >>> >> >> Looking at the LICENSE files of Apache httpd and subversion projects >> reveals >> that for each license in the LICENSE file the corresponding >> source/component is >> identified. Some like: >> - "For the mod_mime_magic component:" >> - "For the modules\mappers\mod_imagemap.c component:" >> >> Is such an identification necessary in the LICENSE file? >> I did not find information about the form of the LICENSE file content on >> apache.org. > > > Further searching helps here ;-) > I have found [4]: > <quote> > ... > All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be > included in the LICENSE document. This LICENSE (courtesy of Apache HTTPD) is > a good example. The Apache License is at the top of the LICENSE document. > After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed component is included, > along with a clear explanation of which files that license applies to. > ... > </quote> > Thus, I derive from this best practice that an identification of the files > to which the mentioned license in the LICENSE file applies to should be > given. >
But note the further complexity with AOO, that we have binary as well as source packages in our release. And our binary packages includes 3rd party category-b libraries that are not included in our source package. So we need to make this clear somehow in our LICENSE. Maybe we need a LICENCE_source and LICENCE_binary file in SVN that contains the respective. Then we can rename or cat that together to produce the appropriate license for a package. -Rob > [4] > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license > > > Best regards, Oliver.
