Hi, > In looking around, AOO seems to have it in pieces. Other projects have > the full AL in the various versions.
Remember other project may not be correct and or predate the current advice. Given it very easy to put the full license in and that is clearer to anyone looking at the code in source control. I'm happy to make the changes. > IMO, not an error, no need to change it. The more we change, the more > energy gets > spent. The change is simple and again I can do it, a shorter licence is better for users IMO. > Well, now that it is 2015, a full scrub for 2014 needs to happen. It's now recommended that a date range be given. Again easy to change and again I do that if you want. >> 3. There is no need for the Xerces Patch developed at Apache lines [4] > > The instructions at [4] say “It is not necessary”, but doesn’t prohibit it. "It is not necessary to duplicate the line "This product includes software developed at the Apache Software Foundation..." is fairly clean again an easy fix. Also from the same document "It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible," > When concatenated to LICENSE, these items are added to the SUBCOMPONENTS > section. Any Apache 2.0 should not be normally added to license. As the document states under "Bundling an Apache-2.0-licensed Dependency" there is no need to modify LICENSE. > We mention other AL2.0 subcomponents in LICENSE already. For different reason as the license of the (binary) font files are unclear. >> 6. Need to add WC3 see [6] > > I puzzled over this for a while and still am not sure of the answer. Basically if we omit it's most likely a licensing error (as the LICENSE file must contain all licenses of all bundled software), but if we add it there's no error. I can add this. Look at the W3C licensing in xml-apis-ext.jar and xml-apis.jar. > Rat also doesn’t flag W3C files it finds in the scan. That may be because it implementation of a standard and/or API. See 1/2 way down http://xerces.apache.org. > I’m wondering if W3C code has some special status Unlikely as it compatible it's most likely treated the same as BSD/MIT. Also see the license files in the 2 xml jars. The W3C license states "the W3C Software Short Notice should be included (hypertext is preferred, text is permitted) within the body of any redistributed or derivative code." > I don’t think it is our problem to resolve issues in Xalan’s NOTICE. The > README files don’t seem to be in the binary package we use. We can point it out to them and it easy to fix ie remove a few lines. Again I can do that. >> 6. Missing some notices from xerces (there are several NOTICE files) > > I think I got them all. Which ones did I miss? It should be: Portions of this software were originally based on the following: - software copyright (c) 1999, IBM Corporation., http://www.ibm.com. - software copyright (c) 1999, Sun Microsystems., http://www.sun.com. - voluntary contributions made by Paul Eng on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation that were originally developed at iClick, Inc., software copyright (c) 1999. Portions of this code are derived from classes placed in the public domain by Arbortext on 10 Apr 2000. See: http://www.arbortext.com/customer_support/updates_and_technical_notes/catalogs/docs/README.htm Portions of this software was originally based on the following: - software copyright (c) 1999-2002, Lotus Development Corporation., http://www.lotus.com. - software copyright (c) 2001-2002, Sun Microsystems., http://www.sun.com. - software copyright (c) 2003, IBM Corporation., http://www.ibm.com. >> 7. Missing required notices from XML commons extensions xml-apis-ext.jar The NOTICE should include: Portions of this software were originally based on the following: - software copyright (c) 1999, IBM Corporation., http://www.ibm.com. - software copyright (c) 1999, Sun Microsystems., http://www.sun.com. - software copyright (c) 2000 World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org >> 8. Missing required notices from XML commons xml-apis.jar Looks to be the same as xml-apis-ext.jar Thanks, Justin
