incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Where does copyright information go for a binary distribution?
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2014 03:30:29 GMT
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:06 PM, James Taylor <> wrote:
> The copyright for the bits we're bundling. See the LICENSE file I included
> at the end of my email. For example:
> Guava, version 12.0.1,
> Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
> Is that the correct way to include the Copyright? Or is this not required?

First, I had to do some recon on Guava.

*   The repo at <>
    has a file at the top level called `COPYING` which contains the ALv2.
*   Guava source releases 12.0.1 and the current 16.0.1 do not include the
    file `COPYING`.  Individual source files have headers as spec'd at the
    end of the ALv2 (which is slightly different from the ASF's headers).
    These have Google copyright notices as above.
*   Guava binary releases contain no licensing info in `META-INF` -- no
    `COPYING`, no `LICENSE`, no `NOTICE`.

With that information available, I can now answer your question:

The copyright information in the license headers of Guava source files does
not need to be propagated into the top-level licensing files for Apache
Phoenix for either source or binary redistributions.  For source
redistributions, the ALv2 is satisfied by retaining such copyright notices in
the original dependency source files.  The relevant clause is 4c:

    c.  You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
        distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices
        from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not
        pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and

Had the copyright notice been in a file called `NOTICE`, however, then it
would have been required to propagate it per clause 4d of the ALv2
for **both** source and binary redistributions.

    d.  If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution,
        then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable
        copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file,
        excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
        Derivative Works, 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, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. [...]

But since Guava provides no NOTICE file, you don't need to worry about that.

> Also, how do I know if something is a "required attributions"?

Whether there are "required attributions" which must be propagated into
LICENSE or NOTICE depends on the license of the dependency, and also whether
the redistribution is source or binary.

This is a complicated question, and we ultimately ought to compose and
maintain a table as suggested at <>.

For ALv2 dependencies, see analysis of section 4 above.

For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses
are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded
in each dependency source file.

Unfortunately, the ASF does not provide solid guidance with regards to binary
redistributions bundling MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD dependencies.  My
layperson's read of the BSD licenses is that since the source files are no
longer present, the entire license would need to be propagated *somewhere* and
that either LICENSE or NOTICE inside META-INF would do.

    2.  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
        notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
        documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Note that any binaries you produce as RM are your own responsibility.  IANAL,
the PMC vote only applies to the source artifacts, and only the source release
is an act of the Foundation.

Nevertheless, it might make sense for us to ask ASF Legal Affairs to start
maintaining non-binding best-practice guidance on how to compose licensing
documentation for binary redistributions.

Marvin Humphrey

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message