Hi,
On 02.04.2012 16:52, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
On 28.03.2012 11:18, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi
On 27.03.2012 16:54, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi
Thx for the input so far.
My work stopped, because of the ongoing discussion on legal-discuss. Greg Stein
has started at legal-discuss a corresponding thread, named "use of LICENSE and
NOTICE". To be sure how to proceed I will send the following information to
legal-discuss:
List of links on apache.org with information regarding the content of the
LICENSE file and the NOTICE file which I have found:
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
[2] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
[4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
[5]
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
[6]
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice
My intepretation of this information and the information given in the thread at
legal-discuss is the following:
- Content of LICENSE file - general conclusion:
-- Apache license at the top
-- Licenses of all 3rd party components included in the specific package of a
release inclusive a clear identification of the files to whose the license
apply.
- Content of NOTICE file - general conclusion:
-- Standard copyright notice as given at [1] at the top
-- Notices which are required by 3rd party component licenses which should be
quite rare.
- Further conclusions by orw for the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project:
-- We (AOO incubating) are planning to release a source package and binary
packages. The binary package will include certain category-b licensed
components. Thus, I assume that we need for each package an own LICENSE file and
an own NOTICE file.
-- The LICENSE file and the NOTICE file for the source package will cover the
licenses of our source files.
-- The LICENSE files and the NOTICE files for the binary package will cover
additionally all licenses from the enabled category-b licensed components.
If there are no objections I will continue my work regarding the above
interpretations.
There is already feedback on legal-discuss regarding my post.
A short summary:
- It seems that LICENSE file and NOTICE file of integrated Apache projects as
3rd party components need to be considered. E.g. Apache APR
- It seems that notices of 3rd party components which are licensed under the
Apache license need to be considered. E.g. serf
- For our planned binary packages the bundled dictionary extensions need to be
considered.
If you are interested in further details you may have a look at
http://markmail.org/thread/ze722s7ovb5pjdnn
Thus, I will continue my work on this task:
- First I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the source package of
our release. These will be the files trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/NOTICE
- Then I will create a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file for the binary packages of
our release. I will name them trunk/main/LICENSE-binary-package and
trunk/main/NOTICE-binary-package
I have finished my rework on the LICENSE file and the NOTICE file regarding the
feedback we have got.
Thx again to Pedro, who already did a great job on these files. And sorry Pedro,
that I have completely restructured the files.
I will continue to rework the newly created files LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b for
category-b licensed stuff in our planned binary packages. Herbert (hdu) has
already created these files with initial content from former LICENSE file and
NOTICE file.
Afterwards I will fill the LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.
I have finished my work on LICENSE|NOTICE_category_b and
LICENSE|NOTICE_aggregated files.
Herbert (hdu) is now working on delivering an concatinated LICENSE and NOTICE
file in the binary package - issue 119168.
Best regards, Oliver.
