On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin > (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm > not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects > I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. > > I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from > licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help)
In the interval since Solr graduated from the Incubator, what constitutes a "required" notice has been clarified. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62, especially the comments at <http://s.apache.org/XAf and <http://s.apache.org/jP>. The original rationale for separating NOTICE out in the transition from the Apache License 1.1 to the Apache License 2.0 was to move the following clause: * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, * if any, must include the following acknowledgment: * "This product includes software developed by the * Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)." * Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, * if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The presence of that requirement in a license conflicts with the GPL. But as Roy notes, the "GPL requires the preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses" -- so the kludge of moving it to "NOTICE" works around the GPL incompatibility. Were the Incubator to review Solr's licensing documentation today, I'm certain that the project would be encouraged to pare things down -- to lower the cost to downstream consumers, and in keeping with the modest original intent of NOTICE. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
