incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:45:49 GMT
Marvin -
The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright
notices in there NOTICE file:

Is that correct or incorrect?

I think the reason this comes up a lot is because most of us are software
developers, not IP lawyers. My interpretation of the license howto is that
you include the copyright info, since those bits are bundled in our binary
distribution and their original NOTICE files are no longer present. Is that
the incorrect way to interpret this:

Copyright notifications which have been
relocated<> from
source files (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However,
elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT
licenses need <>
not<> be
duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their
original locations.
When I read the Apache 2.0, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause, and MIT licenses,
they all state this:
    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Doesn't that mean that the copyright notice is required? Again, I'm an
engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying
to get a release out.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor <>wrote:

> Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required
> anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file?
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey <>wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor <>
>> wrote:
>> > Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the
>> bundled
>> > bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
>> >
>> > Would appreciate a review.
>> What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread
>> -- I
>> have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually
>> bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives.
>> The proposed LICENSE file looks OK.  It is not necessary to embed the
>> complete
>> text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it
>> is
>> not forbidden, either.
>> The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices.
>> Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and
>> they
>> should be removed.  See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for
>> additional explanation:
>>     Because the file is named "NOTICE", people tend to think it's for
>> anything
>>     notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back
>>     over and over like a weed...
>> Best,
>> Marvin Humphrey
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message