incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré>
Subject Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:18:41 GMT
Hi Justin,

Starting from the licensing howto 
(, 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 illustrate how to proceed for 
"newbies" (or even veterans ;)).



On 01/26/2016 08:46 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> 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.
>> Is this true even if the original dependency carries a copyright?
> Yes. The copyright should be in a NOTICE file and if that exists need it needs be be
added to your NOTICE file. [1]
> BTW bootstrap in now MIT not Apache so you may want to double check the version/license
you are using.
>> For example, we bundle Twitter's Bootstrap library and currently have attribution
in our
>> LICENSE file[2] indicating the copyright (even though it's also at the top
>> of the relevant files). Not necessary?
> It’s not required under current policy, but there’s no harm in adding it.
>> 2) In other cases we've bundled MIT or BSD-licensed source. The license
>> says that redistributions must retain the text of the license. Is it
>> sufficient that that text be only in the source code, or should we also
>> duplicate it into LICENSE.txt as we've done for code derived from
>> AsyncHBase? [3]
> You should add the full text or better still a pointer to it. [2]
>> 3) We have many thirdparty dependencies which are not "bundled" in the
>> source release. Instead, our build process has a script which downloads
>> them from the internet, unpacks, and compiles them. So, despite not being
>> part of the artifact itself, they are required components for the build
>> (and in most cases become static-linked into the binary). We currently list
>> all of these dependencies and their licenses in LICENSE.txt. Is this
>> necessary, or should we move these into a separate file?
> Only items bundled should be mentioned in LICENSE/NOTICE. [3]
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend -

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

View raw message