Hi, On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Karl Pauls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jukka Zitting wrote: >>> b) Should we include "Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org" in trunk/NOTICE? >>> >> Hmm, Roy says we don't have to (at least this is what I understood during >> the whole discussion) - but lets add it. > > I think we still need to keep the attribution as far as I understand > his last mail...
This is also my understanding, i.e. we should include the attribution in NOTICE. >>> d) Many of the generated bundles don't have complete NOTICE files (for >>> example commons.log doesn't mention SLF4J even though SLF4J classes >>> are included), but I wouldn't treat that as a blocker as the bundles >>> are secondary release artifacts and the required information is still >>> available in the LICENSE.* files. >> >> Great. Again these are things where Roy said we don't need them. > > Again, I think for the binaries we do need the attribution and the > LICENSE files because we don't embed the complete jar's. We only > include some of the code -- hence, the original NOTICE and LICENSE > files are not included in the resulting artifact and needs to be added > by us. We already explicitly included the LICENSE file (LICENSE.slf4j in the example), so the question is whether we also need to include the copyright attribution in NOTICE. It's essentially the same question as above with JSON: should the copyright attribution go to NOTICE even if the third party license doesn't mandate where in a release the attribution should be? The source header and copyright notice policy says: "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices." (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice) BR, Jukka Zitting
