I'm going to ask on legal-discuss. I've commented in-line as well. IMO, nothing you quoted here contradicts this passage which is from the legal folder: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html "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."
But just so I understand: is your position now that the LICENSE and NOTICE are ok as-is? -Alex On 6/21/14 1:02 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> 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]. >Well actually it is, AL is a permissive license. It no different to MIT >or BSD in that regard, the only difference being is that in most cases >there no need to add it to LICENSE as the AL licence and copyright owner >is already mentioned. ie the ASF Agreed, in most cases you don't make changes. I think the common case here is an AL source dependency which has a header in it referencing a NOTICE which may have copyrights in it. > >There is noting stating that it needs to be added to the NOTICE file here >[1] which is where I would expect it to be. Note it does mention CC media >but say changes may need to be made to LICENCE and/or NOTICE. Definitely agree that stuff is all over the place and makes it confusing. But I am quoting from a document in the legal folder. > >In [2] under "modifications to NOTICE" note: >"NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required >notifications which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE " And that quote indicates that this might be one of those notifications. > >Also the NOTICE file is informational only [3]: >"The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and >do not modify the License." > >Basically A NOTICE is informational document, while LICENSE is legal >document. > >For Apache License changes to the NOTICE are not required by the license, >the only clause (as I said before) is 4.4 ie.e a retention clause >covering any NOTICE distributed with the original. > >BTW Apache Whisper tries to get around all these softs of issue by >specifying everything in XML and generating the LICENSE and NOTICE files. >[4] It's FAQ is a useful read. [5] > >"A NOTICE is informational documentation, whereas a copyright notice >informs a reader about a legal claim of ownership" and "copyright notice >is governed directly by statue." I'm not sure what the above argues. I think it is just the definitions. For sure copyright notices can end up in NOTICE. > >Justin > >1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#asking-questions >2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps >3. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >4. http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/ >5. http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/faq.html
