On 2/8/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cliff,
This is what I am thinking of putting into the NOTICE.txt file to
document the inclusion better.
--------------------------------
In accordance with provision 3.2. Availability of Source Code of the MPL
1.1
License, the source for the custom_rhino.jar is supplied in this
distribution
as a svn diff located at:
[INSTALL_DIR]\source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
Code Change Description: The code that has been modified supplies the
compression functionality in the of the build system. This code was
created
as part of the Dojo Foundation. More information on this functionality
can
be found at http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html
----------------
Would this be sufficient?
Yes -- this looks good to me. The page you linked to is much more
helpful than the generic Mozilla source page that I saw in the Rhino
README. This one is specific to Rhino and refers to the specific
source the diff is based on (in this case the HEAD of the repository).
Cliff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Buffone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
Cliff,
MPL 1.1
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
This is met by the fact as we supply the diff of the svn repository in
the distribution, at
source\buildsystem\buildscripts\lib\custom_rhino.diff
3.3. Description of Modifications.
We will need to make this clearer, by putting it in the notice and
describing the modification.
Should this meet and concerns on the custom rhino code. If so, I will
update the NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt to have reference to the MPL and
upload a new version.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
On 2/8/07, James Margaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After spending about 3 hours today merging conflicts based on changed
copyrights, isn't "Copyright Apache blah blah blah" no longer the right
header? According to some docs after November 06 the headers are
supposed to have been changed as the source files are actually not
copyright apache, they are copyright the original contributor and used
by Apache under a license grant.
You are right that the document I have linked you to does say that the
copyright statement doesn't go at the top of each source file.
However, I was referring to the statement in the NOTICE file, which
that same document also says should include the ASF copyright notice.
Let me know if some part of it is not clear, and I'll fix it.
> What actually *is* under apache copyright rather than simply granted
via license?
The collective work of all contributions as released based on the
determination of the PMC is done on behalf of the ASF. Every
individual author retains copyright ownership in their contribution,
but the ASF owns the copyright in the collective work created by a
release (or really any other PMC decision that affects the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the individual contributions).
> The Rhino jar we use is actually a modified version patched by the
Dojo guys. The patch file in in the Dojo repository.
OK, but I assume you understand that doesn't reduce our requirement to
make sure the conditions of the MPL (particularly 3.1-3.6) have been
met before we can distribute Rhino (see first sentence of MPL 3.6).
> AFAIK, nobody has edited any copyright notices to change them in any
way.
That's good.
Cliff
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 6:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] XAP 0.3.0 Release Candidate Vote
>
>
>
> On 2/7/07, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Xapians,
> >
> > I have posted a release candidate at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/
> >
> > This release takes into account the feedback from the Cliff
(NOTICE.txt,
> > and licensing headers) and Robert's feedback on the Xap zip file
name.
> >
> > Again thanks for the feedback and the work on getting the release to
> > this point. I hope this is last cut, so we can get back to coding.
>
> I took another good look through it. The LICENSE file looks good, but
> then I got concerned when I noticed that it appears to only include
> the license for the Google and Dojo stuff, but not the other things
> that are mentioned in the NOTICE file, e.g. Rhino, Jython. If
> something like Rhino is part of the release, it needs to have its
> license included in the LICENSE file.
>
> Speaking of Rhino, I found the custom jars, but couldn't see the
> license anywhere in that folder either. The license should ideally be
> near the associated third-party work, in addition to being copied or
> referenced/linked in the top-level LICENSE file. AFAICT, it's in
> neither place, which would be . After seeing this, I didn't track
> down the others listed in NOTICE that do not appear to be in LICENSE,
> but you'd want to check them too.
>
> Also, I was looking for the complete Rhino source and couldn't find
> that. I saw the README.txt that states, "The source code for Rhino is
> available at:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code";,
> but it wasn't obvious from there where to find the Rhino source for
> the version used in XAP. If you don't include the source, you must
> have a link to exactly where the source is (this is an MPL
> requirement).
>
> BTW, I have no idea why Google and Dojo get this wrong, but there's no
> comma after the year or year range in a copyright notice. There's
> also no need for "Copyright" followed by "(c)" -- just one or the
> other. I definitely wouldn't fix any third-party copyright notices;
> just copy it from what they used, as you did; however, the Apache one
> should be written properly, as described in the link I gave you
> ("Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation"). I wouldn't have
> bothered stopping a release vote if this was the only problem, but if
> you're fixing the other things, you might want to make sure the Apache
> one is clean. You can also see the actual Copyright Act's requirement
> here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000401----0
00-.html#b.
>
> BTW, did Mozilla, Jython, and Python all make the same mistake? I
> didn't check all of them, but I just want to make sure there was no
> editing done of their copyright notices.
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
