On 26 March 2014 22:45, James Taylor wrote: > Marvin - > The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright > notices in there NOTICE file: > https://github.com/apache/airavata/blob/master/modules/distribution/airavata-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE > > Is that correct or incorrect? Could well be correct; I've not checked the NOTICE files for the bundled code. > 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. Note the above. > 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? Yes, but "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations." Copyright notices have been *relocated* from source files have to go into NOTICE. The copyright notice in the license has not been relocated, so it is still in the license text. > Again, I'm an > engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying > to get a release out. > Thanks, > James > > > > 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: >>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a >>> >>> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org