Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > There are no active products using Apache-1.1 -- though old releases are still > available -- so this question is mostly academic. May be the case for some binary releases using old software. I can think of one project that may need to check that. > But it's very interesting historically

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Here what I worked out needs to be added to LICENSE and NOTICE for each type > of bundled license. Good stuff! Here's a old (2002) but succinct snippet on combining licenses: http://www.catb.org/esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#compatibility

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, You may want to common on / watch what happens with this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-234 (Re ASF license copyright lines in NOTICE) Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apa

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: >>> Does the policy need to be made clearer first? >> >> Yes, I think that's important -- it will help us to persuade PMCs that our >> proposed changes are both correct and worthwhile. > > OK lets work on that. Based on insights gleaned from r

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, Here what I worked out needs to be added to LICENSE and NOTICE for each type of bundled license. Bundled Code licenseLICENSE NOTICE Apache 1.1 Y Y Not sure what need to be added to NOTICE here ASF Apache 2.0 N

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Encouraging use of Whisker from the Apache Creadur project is another avenue: http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/ On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > >> But better conventions on the format and content of the files that would > >> make automated processing easier would

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > When I saw this topic in the past, the answer was "nothing" [1] What we’re legally required to do (i.e. nothing) is reasonably clear, but what policy or culturally is the best option is perhaps unclear. Thanks, Justin -

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 2/4/16, 3:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >A fair number of non ASF Apache software is usually missing a NOTICE file >or has other issues. What do we do when you bundle a non ASF Apache >license software that is missing a NOTICE file? Nothing or be a little >more polite or assume a minimal NOT

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > What we put in NOTICE is policy right rather than a > legal requirement so I guess 3rd parties can do just about anything and > that’s OK? The Apache License 2.0 doesn't restrict what can go in NOTICE. You could put the lyrics to "Happy Bir

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, >> But better conventions on the format and content of the files that would >> make automated processing easier would also be a great thing, but that >> might be too late already. > > Right, the hardest part of this problem is the spec, which SPDX provides. SPDX looks good - how there been a

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Serge Huber wrote: > As an engineer that's not an expert at legal stuff I was wondering if > there isn't a way to solve this with tooling ? If you're going to go this route, I suggest taking a look at SPDX: http://spdx.org/about-spdx Our Mission Develop an

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

As an engineer that's not an expert at legal stuff I was wondering if there isn't a way to solve this with tooling ? I've seen a few Maven plugins out there but they don't seem to work properly, especially for binary distributions. I've started a plugin myself here [1] but it's still in heavy d

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, I took a look at all the LICENSE, NOTCE and DISCLAIMER files in the non documentation / non web site github repos of all incubating projects. I was assisted by scripts and make a few assumptions for expediency so may of missed a couple/included a graduated or retired project. Some data po

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > We can let the Board know that poor TLP compliance with Apache licensing > policy is complicating our work in the Incubator +1 to that it makes reviewing releases a lot harder. Recently a few release candidates have waited too long for a vote here and that may be a factor. Some incubating

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

I can see how a TLP would not be receptive to someone nit-picking their LICENSE/NOTICE files. Asking for patches, as Marvin suggests, is one approach that might work. Another approach is for someone with expertise in licensing to approach a TLP and offer to take them through a licensing review.

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Perhaps it's time to ask TLP to review their LICENCE / NOTICE to be a little > more consistent with current policy? I approached a bunch of Lucene PMC members about this at ApacheCon a couple years back and they were receptive to the idea. H

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi > > It seems that some of the confusion comes from what top level projects have > done and not keep up with policy? > From a 5 minute search (and not to pick on / point out any particular > project) here’s some examples were > I think imp

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

HI, > [4] https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html > BTW nicely put together, it's well worth a read and clearly explains quite tricky LICENSE and NOTICE issues. Thanks, Justin

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > Speaking from the NiFi side I can assure you an enormous amount of > time, energy, and communication go into LICENSE and NOTICE handling > for this project. Sorry if you thought my message applied otherwise, there’s certainly no harm intended. I was just pointing out (with some examples)

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Justin, Speaking from the NiFi side I can assure you an enormous amount of time, energy, and communication go into LICENSE and NOTICE handling for this project. We've had discussions with PMC and committers of other projects to learn their approach as well as to encourage them to follow these pol

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi It seems that some of the confusion comes from what top level projects have done and not keep up with policy? From a 5 minute search (and not to pick on / point out any particular project) here’s some examples were I think improvement could be made to NOTICE files. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Per

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

If no one else steps forward to pick up the task of integrating this new material into the Licensing How-To, I'm happy to. Marvin Humphrey On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > Thanks so much for helping to clarify these details. Having just worked > through some of these ques

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Thanks so much for helping to clarify these details. Having just worked through some of these questions I can say I would have definitely benefitted from having this information available. Anthony > On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:42 AM,

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > I started a Google doc to try to clear this up in a simple "if/then" type > layout: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eftfjrWpOG-dRkw9dZWRfcj3p_qCeE5xC-G0Y5j29Ck/edit Nice work! > I have a bunch of confusion/open questions still, and ema

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

I started a Google doc to try to clear this up in a simple "if/then" type layout: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eftfjrWpOG-dRkw9dZWRfcj3p_qCeE5xC-G0Y5j29Ck/edit I have a bunch of confusion/open questions still, and email threads don't seem to be the best way to clear these things up, because

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

There really isn't a difference between things copied without modification and things copied with modification insofar as copyright is concerned. Copying without modification into a larger work is just a special case of a derived work. The change introduced is represented by adding the rest of the

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

For the sake of all of these discussions, are "bundled dependencies" and "work derived from other projects source code" 100% equivalent? In many cases we've copied (or ported) small bits of code from other projects and believe them to be 'derived work' from a copyright standpoint. My assumption is

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Yea, even after this thread I'm not entirely sure on whether copyright > statements need to be duplicated from original source files into NOTICE or > not. Copyright statements on their own within a source file? They do not. > For example, Su

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

> NOTICE files and am still unclear. I agree with JB - examples would be > great. > > Regards, > Roberta > > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:19 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.or

RE: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

5:19 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files Hi Justin, Starting from the licensing howto (http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice), and regarding what you said, it's not obvious to me, and a bit confusing. Maybe, we can enha

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 1/26/16, 12:07 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> In this email [4], Sebb recommends mentioning non-ASF Apache-licensed >> bundled dependencies in LICENSE. > >I think you are misrepresenting Sebb here but I'll let him clarify if >need be. > >The case you refer to the file in question was a

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi Justin, Starting from the licensing howto (http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice), and regarding what you said, it's not obvious to me, and a bit confusing. Maybe, we can enhance a bit the licensing howto to be more "straight forward", using some existing examples to i

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > LICENSE lists the licenses of bundled software that require it. Apache > licensed software doesn’t require that. [1] I should clarify that’s only in the case when the software is already under an Apache license. Basically there’s no need to list the license twice. Thanks, Justin

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > In this email [4], Sebb recommends mentioning non-ASF Apache-licensed > bundled dependencies in LICENSE. I think you are misrepresenting Sebb here but I'll let him clarify if need be. The case you refer to the file in question was a binary file whose license wasn’t obvious. When adding on

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Hi, > 1) In the case that we've borrowed code from another Apache 2.0 licensed > project, the licensing howto[1] says that there is no need to modify > LICENSE unless it transitively has dependencies with such a requirement. That is the current policy yes so there is no need to list them. >

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 1/25/16, 6:19 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: >Hey folks, > >I'm working on tidying up the source for Apache Kudu (incubating) in order >to prepare for our first ASF release, and ran into a couple bits of >confusion: > >1) In the case that we've borrowed code from another Apache 2.0 licensed >proje