Re: release requirements status
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ooops, sent a bit too early -- meant "wow, I was really wrong about this, good to know" and "cool, thanks for pointing it out" ;)... So I was wrong about being wrong ;-) Actually, in the case of Jetty, I think we should say something like The Jetty web server code distributed with this software was developed by Mort Bay Consulting (http://www.mortbay.org), the original software is available from their website. In the NOTICE.txt, based on http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt -Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Ooops, sent a bit too early -- meant "wow, I was really wrong about this, good to know" and "cool, thanks for pointing it out" ;) Yoav On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow, cool. Yoav On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ahh, here's the pointer: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > > ''' > If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It > Contain Several License Files? > > No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file. > > When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE > file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component > which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license > under which the component is distributed should be appended to the > LICENSE file. > ''' > > -Yonik > > On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all > > > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is > > > just for our own (Solr) stuff. > > > > LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution. > > Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the > > XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss. > > > > -Yonik > > >
Re: release requirements status
Wow, cool. Yoav On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ahh, here's the pointer: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html ''' If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It Contain Several License Files? No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file. When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license under which the component is distributed should be appended to the LICENSE file. ''' -Yonik On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all > > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is > > just for our own (Solr) stuff. > > LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution. > Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the > XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss. > > -Yonik >
Re: release requirements status
Ahh, here's the pointer: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html ''' If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It Contain Several License Files? No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file. When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license under which the component is distributed should be appended to the LICENSE file. ''' -Yonik On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all > the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is > just for our own (Solr) stuff. LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution. Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss. -Yonik
Re: release requirements status
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is just for our own (Solr) stuff. LICENSE needs to apply to everything in the distribution. Solr's current LICENSE has ASL 2.0, followed by the license for the XML parser we use, as directed by legal-discuss. -Yonik
Re: release requirements status
On 12/1/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is just for our own (Solr) stuff... Hmmm..you're right (it's Friday here, it's been a long week ;-) -Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
Hi, On 12/1/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases > for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of > the incubator You're right...so maybe we could mention AL-licensed code that we use in LICENSE.txt? Something like -- This product includes code from other projects which use the Apache License: -- Lucene (http://lucene.apache.org/java/) Jetty (http://www.mortbay.org/) -Bertrand I thought this was exactly what the NOTICE file is for? Mention all the code from other projects we use, including ASL code. LICENSE is just for our own (Solr) stuff. Yoav
Re: release requirements status
On 12/1/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of the incubator You're right...so maybe we could mention AL-licensed code that we use in LICENSE.txt? Something like -- This product includes code from other projects which use the Apache License: -- Lucene (http://lucene.apache.org/java/) Jetty (http://www.mortbay.org/) -Bertrand
Re: release requirements status
On 12/1/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/30/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...I'm not sure if we need to note anything about Jetty in LICENSE or > NOTICE or not... it already uses the ASL 2.0 license, but does seem to > contain other licenses within it How about creating a "legal" directory with copies of Jetty's (and other) license files? I see there are some in example/etc, maybe a top-level "legal" would be clearer? AFAIK, best practice is currently a single NOTICE and LICENSE file at the top with everything in it (or at a minimum pointers from the LICENSE file to all other licenses). Part of the problem is one can't look at other ASF project releases for much guidance since many would not pass the current scrutiny of the incubator. -Yonik
Re: release requirements status
On 11/30/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...I'm not sure if we need to note anything about Jetty in LICENSE or NOTICE or not... it already uses the ASL 2.0 license, but does seem to contain other licenses within it How about creating a "legal" directory with copies of Jetty's (and other) license files? I see there are some in example/etc, maybe a top-level "legal" would be clearer? This is how we do it in Cocoon, see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/legal/ -Bertrand
