On 1/25/15, 12:42 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Let’s discuss the alice.xml file header. It still seems to me that >>having >> the Apache header is correct as the text was significantly modified to >> have TextFlow markup in it. > >The modification are trivial, and non creative as they basically just >adding paragraph marks at the start and end of each line. My >understanding is that the licence header only needs to change to Apache >if significant creative changes are made. If the header is changed then >that also needs to be put into the NOTICE file. Do we want to do that on >a file by file basis I assume not? I don’t know how to define non-creative, but IMO, the TLF markup is IP because we want folks to be able to modify the TLF markup under Apache rules, and modify the text under public domain rules. I took a quick peek at Apache Commons Compress source, which seems to be the client for LEGAL-72 which you referenced upthread [2]. This view of the source [3] could be misleading, but the notice says that the files in the package are derived from 7zip but the source files all seem to have Apache headers. [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-72 [3] https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/search?utf8=✓&q=sevenz So maybe we put attribution in NOTICE.test or a NOTICE file in the test folder and put in there the attributions for each public domain text. That way we can roll it into the main NOTICE like we are doing for NOTICE.bin should those things ever end up in a release artifact. And then we’ll be matching the pattern used by the folks who were the subject of LEGAL-72. That’s why It still seems to me that Apache headers are correct. If you still disagree, open a case on legal-discuss. > >> Can you post what you think the header should be? > >Something simple along the lines of: >"Content taken form Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. Now in the >public domain." > >> And can you explain why it should be different than the way we handled >>the CC content in Tour De >> Flex? > >Perhaps that's wrong as well and needs fixing, but at least the original >license is mentioned in the file and it's also mentioned in NOTICE. I don’t think that’s wrong. Even though it isn’t mandated by anything I’ve read so far, I also haven’t seen anything that says having the attribution in the source file is wrong, so I’d be ok having mentioning where the text came from as you proposed above in the source file as a comment. -Alex
