On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert <tvolk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk > > > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for > > > > the full text. > > > > > > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk. Given that we got it from > > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/, which is the license > > linked to > > > off the silk icon home page, should this block a release? > > > > Yes, because it's not actually the license. > > > > > I'm adding the full license to the trunk now, but with all due respect, I'm > gonna wait for an IPMC opinion on this one, since we've already gone out > with the 1.1 and 1.2 releases with the existing license (and since this is > an incubating release). Don't get me wrong: I'm not against re-tagging if > it's required; but no sense in calling off the vote prematurely. > > > > > For 3rd party libraries which use the AL 2.0 license (e.g. Smack & > > > > Groovy) for completeness this should be noted in the LICENSE file. > > > > > > the NOTICE file says which items are Apache 2.0 licensed, and the LICENSE > > > file contains the Apache 2.0 license text. Is this not sufficient? > > > > It would make life a lot easier for users (and reviewers) if the > > LICENSE file had the complete list. > > > > > Just to be clear what you're saying, you want something like the following > at the very top of the LICENSE file: > > "For Apache Tomcat's Servlet 2.5 implementation, the Smack Jabber API, and > the Groovy scripting engine:" > > Saying that they're Apache 2.0 licensed in the NOTICE file would seem to be > sufficient, given that users and reviewers will see the Apache license at > the top of the LICENSE file. The other licenses are shown to what they > pertain because otherwise it'd be hard to search for them in the LICENSE > file. > > If we add the afformentioned line at the top, should we also add "and for > Apache Pivot"? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, it seems > like we're catering to the lowest common denominator here.
Have a look at how Photark have done it: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/tags/M1-incubating-RC4/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE > > > > The NOTICE file mentions VMWare, but fails to mention any associated > > > > license. > > > > > > That's because VMware maintains a copyright ownership over the code > > > contributed to the ASF, as described in the "Overview" and "Source File > > > Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" sections of the ASF Source Header > > and > > > Copyright Notice Policy (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html). > > > This copyright notice is pursuant to ASF copyright notice policy. > > > > That's why there is a mention in the NOTICE file, but surely there > > must be some license associated with the VMWare code? What is it, and > > where is it? > > > > > Actually, IANAL, but I think you're wrong. VMware hasn't licensed the file > to the ASF - they've donated it to the ASF -- but are still covered by > copyright protection. > IANAL either, but in that case, presumably the code is now under AL 2.0. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
