I suspect 'relevant' means those parts of a NOTICE relating to the parts of the product you use.
In this case you'd include the whole file (ie +1 to Marvin). I suspect 'relevant' needs clarification in the docs. Hen On Friday, March 18, 2016, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Jackson JSON processing lib which is Apache 2.0 licensed carries this > NOTICE file: > > ------------------------------------------ > # Jackson JSON processor > > Jackson is a high-performance, Free/Open Source JSON processing library. > It was originally written by Tatu Saloranta (tatu.salora...@iki.fi > <javascript:;>), and has > been in development since 2007. > It is currently developed by a community of developers, as well as > supported > commercially by FasterXML.com. > > ## Licensing > > Jackson core and extension components may be licensed under different > licenses. > To find the details that apply to this artifact see the accompanying > LICENSE file. > For more information, including possible other licensing options, contact > FasterXML.com (http://fasterxml.com). > > ## Credits > > A list of contributors may be found from CREDITS file, which is included > in some artifacts (usually source distributions); but is always available > from the source code management (SCM) system project uses. > ------------------------------------------ > > Does anyone have any advice on what portion of this is relevant for > inclusion in a binary NOTICE file? Should it all be included perhaps? > > Perhaps more generally, given > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep > > where it says, > > "If the dependency supplies a NOTICE file, its contents must be analyzed > and the relevant portions bubbled up into the top-level NOTICE file." > > is there any more detailed information on how "relevant portions" get > determined? > > Thanks, > > Stephen >
