Hello Justing,
>>> - LICENSE is misisng info on [3][4]?
>>
>> I’m not sure to understand this point. I checked both file and they have a
>> license information in their header.
>
> They need to be mentioned in LICENSE, as that is where licencing info goes.
Ok, thanks a lot for the clarification.
The CopyWriter.java file is part of the Apache Baremaps project and does not
require a mention in the LICENSE and NOTICE file.
The ./baremaps-flatgeobuf/src/main/fbs/header.fbs and
./baremaps-flatgeobuf/src/main/fbs/features.fbs files are actually mentioned in
the following line extracted from the third party licenses section of the
LICENSE file:
- FlatGeobuf, BSD-2-Clause license
According to the documentation [1], what’s currently missing in our LICENSE
file are pointers (“For details, see deps/flatgeobuf”). I suggest to modify the
third party section as follow, so we have pointers for everything.
THIRD PARTY LICENSES:
Code and data produced outside the ASF that is included in the
distribution of this product is subject to the following
additional license terms:
- FlatGeobuf, BSD-2-Clause license, see
https://github.com/flatgeobuf/flatgeobuf.
- GeoPackage Java, MIT License, see
https://github.com/ngageoint/geopackage-java.
- OSMPBF, MIT License, see
https://github.com/openstreetmap/OSM-binary/pull/35.
- OSM Test Data, Public domain, see
https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata.
- Mapbox Vector Tile, Creative Commons Public License, see
https://github.com/mapbox/vector-tile-spec.
- Palantir Streams, Apache License 2.0, see
https://github.com/palantir/streams.
- Planetiler, Apache License 2.0, see
https://github.com/onthegomap/planetiler.
- PMTiles, BSD-3-Clause license, see
https://github.com/protomaps/PMTiles.
- pyosmium, BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License, see
https://github.com/osmcode/pyosmium.
>
>>> - NOTICE contains information on MIT/BSD license code when it should not
>>
>> Does this mean I should remove all the notices related to MIT/BSD? For
>> instance, I thought the following notice would be helpful as it shows where
>> the relicensing discussion occurred. From my understanding a notice is some
>> sort of observation, notification, or warning.
>
> License Information should go in LICENSE, not NOTICE; see [1] on handling
> MIT/BSD license code.
Yes, except for the missing pointers and honest mistakes, I believe that most
information is currently in our LICENSE file.
The reason for the notice file is that we never “bundled” a whole project into
baremaps. Instead, we derived and adapted a couple of files from third party
projects and included them in our sources. This is the reason why we found
useful to tell more about it in the NOTICE file. The notices are mainly here to
track these files more easily in the repo and to address possible questions
(e.g. OSMPBF header files been relicensed to MIT but it is not obvious in the
OSM-binary repository).
I can remove all these notices if they are not needed.
>
>> Should the complete licences be placed in a specific file or directory?
>
> It can be placed in the LICENSE file, or you can have the LICENSE file
> provide a pointer to it in the artifact, e.g. some projects create a licenses
> directory and put all 3rd party licenses in that.
So I guess the pointers listed above should be sufficient.
For now, I performed the following actions:
- Removed the problematic files:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/commit/2e0f5c053857aa7fb20daf485dc4a06c3fa57be2
- Updated the README and NOTICE files:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/commit/eb4e12fd29713d9494eb3d64a030be7972a99735
Please, let me know if these changes are sufficient to drop a new release
candidate.
Thanks a lot for you help and best regards,
Bertil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
