Re: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)
BTW the discussion is taking place on legal-discuss@apache.org -dain On Aug 6, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Hi Dave, The current deadline for the new policy is for releases distributed after Sept 1. See http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. Some people are questioning that deadline. However, I'd guess that 1.1.1 will be our last release under existing policy... --kevan On Aug 5, 2006, at 11:19 AM, David Jencks wrote: Reading some more mails on the maven list, this change has apparently been postponed but we should no doubt watch out for it. thanks david jencks On Aug 5, 2006, at 8:13 AM, David Jencks wrote: I've seen discussion about this new policy on several other apache lists but AFAICT I did not receive any direct notice of the new policy and AFAICT our source files do not yet have the new header. Did any other committers get notice of this? Don't we have to fix the source for 1.1.1 before releasing it? thanks david jencks Begin forwarded message: From: Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: July 31, 2006 11:51:25 PM PDT To: dev@maven.apache.org Subject: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy) Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" According to the two mails below from [EMAIL PROTECTED], starting with today a PMC isn't allowed to release an artifact if the sources don't cover the new copyright header policy (second mail). Additionally we need to add LICENSE and NOTICE files inside jars too (first mail). Has the maven-jar-plugin been adapted to meet this requirement or is there some simple way to achieve the same result? Reinhard Cliff Schmidt wrote: On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: What would be the policy for jar files that can be distributed individually through the Apache repository? do all of them need to have the LICENSE and NOTICE files inside the jar? Yes -- if they are the result of work created at the ASF (not third-party works, which should just be left as they were found) - o - On 6/2/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > During the last ASF Board meeting, a resolution was passed to require > a different licensing header in source files plus requirements for > copyright notices. PMCs are not required to make any changes to past > releases, but must apply these new rules to all distributions > released on or after August 1, 2006. > > Before I send this out to committers@, I thought I'd start by sending > it here to collect and answer any FAQ-type questions. So, here's the > new policy; hit me with any questions you have. > > Thanks, > Cliff > > --- New copyright notice and source header policy --- > > A. THIRD-PARTY COPYRIGHT NOTICES AND LICENSES >0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted > directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent. >1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses > within third-party works. >2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of any > third-party source files. >3. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files > should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the > source for convenience. >4. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt > with on a case-by-case basis by the PMC. > > B. SOURCE FILE HEADERS >0. This section refers only to works submitted directly to the ASF > by the copyright owner or owner's agent. >1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice > included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: > a. remove such notices, or > b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable > project release, or > c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal > or relocation of the notices. >2. Each source file should include the following license header -- > note that there should be no copyright notice in the header: > > Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one > or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file > distributed with this work for additional information > regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file > to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the > "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance > with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, > software dist
Re: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)
Hi Dave,The current deadline for the new policy is for releases distributed after Sept 1. See http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. Some people are questioning that deadline. However, I'd guess that 1.1.1 will be our last release under existing policy...--kevanOn Aug 5, 2006, at 11:19 AM, David Jencks wrote:Reading some more mails on the maven list, this change has apparently been postponed but we should no doubt watch out for it.thanksdavid jencksOn Aug 5, 2006, at 8:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:I've seen discussion about this new policy on several other apache lists but AFAICT I did not receive any direct notice of the new policy and AFAICT our source files do not yet have the new header. Did any other committers get notice of this? Don't we have to fix the source for 1.1.1 before releasing it?thanksdavid jencksBegin forwarded message:From: Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: July 31, 2006 11:51:25 PM PDTTo: dev@maven.apache.orgSubject: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> According to the two mails below from [EMAIL PROTECTED], starting with today a PMC isn't allowed to release an artifact if the sources don't cover the new copyright header policy (second mail). Additionally we need to add LICENSE and NOTICE files inside jars too (first mail).Has the maven-jar-plugin been adapted to meet this requirement or is there some simple way to achieve the same result?ReinhardCliff Schmidt wrote: On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: What would be the policy for jar files that can be distributedindividually through the Apache repository? do all of them need tohave the LICENSE and NOTICE files inside the jar? Yes -- if they are the result of work created at the ASF (not third-party works, which should just be left as they were found) - o -On 6/2/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> During the last ASF Board meeting, a resolution was passed to require> a different licensing header in source files plus requirements for> copyright notices. PMCs are not required to make any changes to past> releases, but must apply these new rules to all distributions> released on or after August 1, 2006.>> Before I send this out to committers@, I thought I'd start by sending> it here to collect and answer any FAQ-type questions. So, here's the> new policy; hit me with any questions you have.>> Thanks,> Cliff>> --- New copyright notice and source header policy --->> A. THIRD-PARTY COPYRIGHT NOTICES AND LICENSES> 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted> directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses> within third-party works.> 2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of any> third-party source files.> 3. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files> should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the> source for convenience.> 4. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt> with on a case-by-case basis by the PMC.>> B. SOURCE FILE HEADERS> 0. This section refers only to works submitted directly to the ASF> by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice> included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:> a. remove such notices, or> b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable> project release, or> c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal> or relocation of the notices.> 2. Each source file should include the following license header --> note that there should be no copyright notice in the header:>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one> or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file> distributed with this work for additional information> regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file> to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the> "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance> with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,> software distributed under the License is distributed on an> "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY> KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the> specific language governing permissions and limitations>
Re: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)
Reading some more mails on the maven list, this change has apparently been postponed but we should no doubt watch out for it.thanksdavid jencksOn Aug 5, 2006, at 8:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:I've seen discussion about this new policy on several other apache lists but AFAICT I did not receive any direct notice of the new policy and AFAICT our source files do not yet have the new header. Did any other committers get notice of this? Don't we have to fix the source for 1.1.1 before releasing it?thanksdavid jencksBegin forwarded message:From: Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: July 31, 2006 11:51:25 PM PDTTo: dev@maven.apache.orgSubject: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> According to the two mails below from [EMAIL PROTECTED], starting with today a PMC isn't allowed to release an artifact if the sources don't cover the new copyright header policy (second mail). Additionally we need to add LICENSE and NOTICE files inside jars too (first mail).Has the maven-jar-plugin been adapted to meet this requirement or is there some simple way to achieve the same result?ReinhardCliff Schmidt wrote: On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: What would be the policy for jar files that can be distributedindividually through the Apache repository? do all of them need tohave the LICENSE and NOTICE files inside the jar? Yes -- if they are the result of work created at the ASF (not third-party works, which should just be left as they were found) - o -On 6/2/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> During the last ASF Board meeting, a resolution was passed to require> a different licensing header in source files plus requirements for> copyright notices. PMCs are not required to make any changes to past> releases, but must apply these new rules to all distributions> released on or after August 1, 2006.>> Before I send this out to committers@, I thought I'd start by sending> it here to collect and answer any FAQ-type questions. So, here's the> new policy; hit me with any questions you have.>> Thanks,> Cliff>> --- New copyright notice and source header policy --->> A. THIRD-PARTY COPYRIGHT NOTICES AND LICENSES> 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted> directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses> within third-party works.> 2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of any> third-party source files.> 3. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files> should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the> source for convenience.> 4. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt> with on a case-by-case basis by the PMC.>> B. SOURCE FILE HEADERS> 0. This section refers only to works submitted directly to the ASF> by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice> included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:> a. remove such notices, or> b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable> project release, or> c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal> or relocation of the notices.> 2. Each source file should include the following license header --> note that there should be no copyright notice in the header:>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one> or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file> distributed with this work for additional information> regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file> to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the> "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance> with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,> software distributed under the License is distributed on an> "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY> KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the> specific language governing permissions and limitations> under the License.>> C. NOTICE FILE> 0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the> top directory, along with the standard LICENSE file> 1. The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,> suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of>
Fwd: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)
I've seen discussion about this new policy on several other apache lists but AFAICT I did not receive any direct notice of the new policy and AFAICT our source files do not yet have the new header. Did any other committers get notice of this? Don't we have to fix the source for 1.1.1 before releasing it?thanksdavid jencksBegin forwarded message:From: Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: July 31, 2006 11:51:25 PM PDTTo: dev@maven.apache.orgSubject: LICENSE and NOTICE in jar artifacts (was: New copyright header policy)Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> According to the two mails below from [EMAIL PROTECTED], starting with today a PMC isn't allowed to release an artifact if the sources don't cover the new copyright header policy (second mail). Additionally we need to add LICENSE and NOTICE files inside jars too (first mail).Has the maven-jar-plugin been adapted to meet this requirement or is there some simple way to achieve the same result?ReinhardCliff Schmidt wrote: On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: What would be the policy for jar files that can be distributedindividually through the Apache repository? do all of them need tohave the LICENSE and NOTICE files inside the jar? Yes -- if they are the result of work created at the ASF (not third-party works, which should just be left as they were found) - o -On 6/2/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> During the last ASF Board meeting, a resolution was passed to require> a different licensing header in source files plus requirements for> copyright notices. PMCs are not required to make any changes to past> releases, but must apply these new rules to all distributions> released on or after August 1, 2006.>> Before I send this out to committers@, I thought I'd start by sending> it here to collect and answer any FAQ-type questions. So, here's the> new policy; hit me with any questions you have.>> Thanks,> Cliff>> --- New copyright notice and source header policy --->> A. THIRD-PARTY COPYRIGHT NOTICES AND LICENSES> 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted> directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses> within third-party works.> 2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of any> third-party source files.> 3. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files> should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the> source for convenience.> 4. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt> with on a case-by-case basis by the PMC.>> B. SOURCE FILE HEADERS> 0. This section refers only to works submitted directly to the ASF> by the copyright owner or owner's agent.> 1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice> included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:> a. remove such notices, or> b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable> project release, or> c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal> or relocation of the notices.> 2. Each source file should include the following license header --> note that there should be no copyright notice in the header:>> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one> or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file> distributed with this work for additional information> regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file> to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the> "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance> with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,> software distributed under the License is distributed on an> "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY> KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the> specific language governing permissions and limitations> under the License.>> C. NOTICE FILE> 0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the> top directory, along with the standard LICENSE file> 1. The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,> suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of> distribution of the current and past versions of the product:>> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]> Copyright [] The Apache Software Foundation>>
