On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > > On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd > party > > > >>> > > > >> > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party > licences. > > > >> > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies > of > > > >> > the AL for every ASF product. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other > licenses? > > > >> These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF > projects. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > See the last paragraph of: > > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party > > > license" - which we in the NOTICE file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see: > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
i'm a little worried by this document: looks a little old to me. for example: <blockquote cite=http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new''> >Source files contributed to or developed as part of an ASF project should begin with a copyright notice like > > Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation. >or > Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. >or > Copyright 2002,2004 The Apache Software Foundation. </blockquote> this is wrong: apache cannot claim copyright on any particular file but only to the collective work AIUI modern legal information should be linked from http://www.apache.org/legal/ (this discussion probably needs to move to legal discuss) <snip> > > > There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the LICENSE > > > file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license. This > > > is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be the > > > ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for > distributions. > > > > > > If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and outside, > > > you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply telling > > > developers one way to get started here. <snip> > I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a > requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the licenses > for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2) have our top > LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each > library in the lib/ directory. > > I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes it much > clearer which license applies to which file. IMHO the best possible practice would be indicate all licenses in the top level LICENSE file and to include .LICENSE files for every artifact included that does not contain an embedded one. but it's possible to argue about release best practice forever... AIUI policy is that a license must be included for every third party artifact and the principle is that users must be able to easily discover the license under which apache is distributed it. this may be achieved by including within the LICENSE file licenses and references to the files they apply to or by using individual LICENSE files provided that they are easy for users to understand. <legal-hat> if policy is not clear then please raise the issue on the legal-discuss list (probably prefix with [POLICY] or something so that it's harder to ignore) </legal-hat> - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
