incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: LICENSE/NOTICE revisited (was Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC8))
Date Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:10:02 GMT
I agree, I didn't mean to generalize about Category B "notice" requirements.

With regard to there being a standard notice for MPL, I was careless. MPL 1.1 had a template
notice.  MPL 2.0 just has section 3.2(a):

  If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then:

  a.  such Covered Software must also be made available in Source
      Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform 
      recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy 
      of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, 
      at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the 
      recipient; [...]

The license is careful to discriminate between Source Code Form and Executable Form, and there
is little detail on notifications associated with an Executable Form for MPL 2.0.

I would think that providing the information in NOTICE satisfies the requirement.  It would
be much easier than coming up with another artifact beside LICENSE and NOTICE, which knowledgable
folks already know to look for.  I don't have any insight on dealing with the fact that the
dependency is build-specific, however the information is provided.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: sebb [] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:43
To: Marvin Humphrey
Cc:; Sergio Fernández; Roy T. Fielding;
Subject: Re: LICENSE/NOTICE revisited (was Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC8))

On 23 April 2013 18:05, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> wrote:
> > Not so fast about dispensing with Category B requirements for pointers to
> > source code.
> Thank you for the specific information about the MPL.  What I said was
> this:
>     The goal is to satisfy the licensing requirements of the dependency,
> not
>     to give credit -- so IMO linking only makes sense if that's a
> requirement
>     of the dependency's license.
> We must not treat linking as a requirement of ALL category B licenses
> because
> SOME of them require it.
If the source code URL is required, then the question arises: does it
*have* to go in the NOTICE file?
Indeed is this one of the functions of the NOTICE file?
Or should it be documented somewhere else?

> Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message