On 6/20/14 4:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> If the media comes from a third-party source (not contributed directly >>to >> the project), then any copyright notice that is obviously associated >>with >> the media should be copied into the NOTICE file." > >This is the case however it is a permissive licence so should not go in >the NOTICE file. [1] I think you may be confusing licensing handling vs copyright handling. > >Note that: >"Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE." > >Note that also: >"NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required >notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE" >and >"it is uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE." Agreed. Any argument to put copyright attribution anywhere is essentially claiming it to be an uncommon situation, especially since it isn't called out in [1]. Note that I found the quote about notice by following this passage from [1] "The complete requirements for LICENSE and NOTICE are described elsewhere <http://www.apache.org/legal>." Which led me to the document with that quote. So, since [1] is saying it isn't complete and points me to a document that proposes treatment for copyrights in third-party media, my logic says that it does not conflict with anything you quoted from [1]. So, I think that leaves us with two choices: A) add the copyright to NOTICE B) leave the NOTICE and LICENSE as is. I cannot find any documents supporting a change to LICENSE as you originally proposed. What is your current recommendation? > >1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps >2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
