On 6/27/14 12:23 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >So we are fine with being inconstant here? > >For instance for Flex Unit we have copyright in LICENSE: > > Some of the code in the directories FlexUnit4UIListener and > FlexUnit4CIListener of FLexUnit is based on Flex Unit 1. This code is > licensed under the BSD 3-clause license and copyright (c) 2003-2010 by > Adobe Systems Incorporated. See the file headers for the full license >text. > >Should the second sentence have the copyright removed and be changed to: >"This code is licensed under the BSD 3-clause license. See the file >headers for the full license text." Feel free to ask legal-discuss if we got this right. The latest guidance indicates that we should remove the copyright from LICENSE and put it in NOTICE, if we didn't already. And if we did get it wrong, I don't think it is such a serious breach that we'd have to re-roll that release. But I could certainly be wrong about that. > >I really don't understand why you object to including Google copying >information but were in favour of Adobe copying information being added >to LICENSE file? > >This information that is helpful to the user of the software and clarify >where the code originally come from. To be honest, I don't have an opinion per-se, and even wonder myself why the guidance does not want us to make that copyright more easily discoverable. But until we get guidance to do so, I don't think we should. My takeaway from the legal-discuss thread is that, since not every copyright holder wants copyright attribution, copyright attribution does not go in LICENSE and only goes in NOTICE by request, and Google in this case, has not left the trail of information that constitutes such a request, such as a NOTICE file in the package. -Alex
