That may be so, and I find this issue irritating to deal with, but I don't see that it has bearing on what is ultimately correct. I think that the guidance you refer to was wrong, according to the text of the licenses, and the link I pointed to.
But even those are a bit ambiguous, so I raise the question here. "This is unclear and annoying" != "This can be ignored", but maybe there are other clear reasons that NOTICE does not need modification after all. LICENSE looks good. It looks like it is noting the license of lots of the bundled third-party libraries, which seems correct. Some person or process even helpfully grouped the 'category B' dependencies. For NOTICE, here's a specific example. Drill distributes Apache Commons Math 3.1, which is AL2 licensed. Its NOTICE includes stanzas like: ... The BracketFinder (package org.apache.commons.math3.optimization.univariate) and PowellOptimizer (package org.apache.commons.math3.optimization.general) classes are based on the Python code in module "optimize.py" (version 0.5) developed by Travis E. Oliphant for the SciPy library (http://www.scipy.org/) Copyright © 2003-2009 SciPy Developers. ... I had the same question -- since the .jar files contains its own NOTICE.txt, is that enough? That doesn't seem to be what the AL2 says: "... You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file ... in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works ..." ... although that's getting pretty technical. But this is the part where technical matters. Note that not all .jar files do copy their NOTICE in META-INF for you. The spirit of the license is that a downstream consumer finds this info where she expects to find it. The top-level NOTICE seems like that place, but, could argue anyone would expect to crack open each .jar to figure it out? The stanza has to appear somewhere, no matter what. It binds downstream consumers no matter what. To me it seemed safer to make sure this info was copied into NOTICE but YMMV. It seems clear that the release must only distribute IP in accordance with their licenses. Worth a double-check at least, to feel confident there is a defensible argument that it is? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Drill has had previous releases stopped *precisely* because NOTICE had too > much stuff in it. The items you mention are among these items. > > I think the release is satisfactory as is. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
