On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Your notice still looks wrong, for example, boto-2.0b2.zip license > > says that the copyright notice should be included in all copies of the > > software, and the boto README has : > > > > Copyright (c) 2006-2010 Mitch Garnaat <mi...@garnaat.org> > > Copyright (c) 2010, Eucalyptus Systems, Inc. > > All rights reserved. > > > > Which is not on the Notice, which now only have : > > > > Apache Mesos > > Copyright 2012, The Apache Software Foundation > > > > This product includes software developed by The Apache Software > > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > > > > Note that the year is also wrong. > > > > > > Similar comments apply to the copyright info from glog, the function > > gettimeofday, etc > > > > Which should bring your Notice to something like : > > > > Apache Mesos > > Copyright 2013, The Apache Software Foundation > > > > This product includes software developed at The Apache Software > > Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > > > > This product includes software developed by Google Inc > > Copyright (c) 2008, Google Inc. > > All rights reserved. > > > > This product includes software developed by Jouni Malinen and > contributors > > Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen <j...@w1.fi> and contributors > > All Rights Reserved. > > > > Having said that, you will need to do this exercise for all third > > party dependencies that you have in your release. > > Hi, I'm sorry that I don't have the time to participate in this thread > fully > and perform a thorough review of the release candidate, but > respinning an RC in order to add copyright notices to NOTICE > doesn't sound right. > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > > Modifications to NOTICE > > NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required > notifications > which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the presence > of > licensing information embedded within the dependency subtree. Aside > from > Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own, > it is > uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE. > > Copyright notifications which have been relocated from source files > (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However, elements > such > as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses > need > not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in > their > original locations. > > It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each > addition places a burden on downstream consumers. Do not add anything > to > NOTICE which is not legally required. > > See LEGAL-59, LEGAL-62 and LEGAL-155 for the back story. > > The "Licensing HowTo" linked above is supposed to provide a formulaic > approach > for generating LICENSE and NOTICE. Hopefully, LICENSE and NOTICE files > which > conform to its recommendations will not get any -1 votes from IPMC members. > > Marvin Humphrey > > Thanks for the pointers Marvin, based on [1] I'm changing my vote to +0 as I haven't looked into any other aspects of the release other then legal files. [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
