Hi, > The CDDL, CPL, MPL license lists and ALv2 headers at bottom. > > CDDL, CPL and MPL are Cat B (looking at > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b here). The reciprocity > requires notice, and so I would think NOTICE is the right place? The listing > is to comply with this guideline: > > "Please include the URL to the product's homepage in the prominent label. An > appropriate and prominent label is a label the user will read while learning > about the distribution - for example in a README. Please also ensure to > comply with any attribution/notice requirements in the specific license in > question.”
NOTICE is not the right place for attribution, the license information usually include attribution (via the copyright line) and that info should go in LICENSE. It’s often thought that “attribution notice requirements” need to go in NOTICE but they don’t. If you carefully read [1] you see that if it already covered by LICENSE there’s no need to add it NOTICE. > If it's on this list, it's because it turned up one day when I dumped the > transitive non-test dependencies of Spark using the Maven plugins. Someone > out there may have a (bogus) non-test dependency on Junit. Dependancy are not listed in LICENSE / NOTICE only things that are actually bundled. > It's not test code; test code would indeed have to be distributed as source > as well. They are binary blobs, if you like, needed by test code, that happen > to be JARs here and not JPEGs or .docx files or something. These help test > handling of JAR files. Which IMO is still not allowed in a source release, but as I said it would be best for you to check on legal discuss. Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
