incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files
Date Sun, 07 Feb 2016 02:34:46 GMT

Here what I worked out needs to be added to LICENSE and NOTICE for each type of bundled license.

Bundled Code license	LICENSE		NOTICE
Apache 1.1			Y			Y		Not sure what need to be added to NOTICE here
ASF Apache 2.0		N			N/Y		From NOTICE If required 
non ASF Apache 2.0	N			Y 		Name and copyright from NOTICE and from NOTICE if required
BSD					Y			N
BSD (advertising)		Y			Y 		Advertising clause
MIT					Y			N
CC-A				Y			N
OFL*				Y			N
MPL*				Y			Y 		How to obtain a copy of source code
CDDL*				Y			Y 		How to obtain a copy of source code
Eclipse*				Y			Y 		How to obtain a copy of source code
GPL					-			-
LGPL				-			-

N = do nothing
Y = required to add 
* In binary form only
- Not allowed in Apache software

Does anyone know what goes in NOTICE for Apache 1.1 licensed software?

For Apache licensed software if required usually means 3rd party required notices or relocated
copyrights that exist the NOTICE file.

Oddly the BSD with advertising clause is not listed in the Category A, B or X lists so while
it seems to have been discussed (at length) it may not actually be able to be bundled.

Only case where there seem to be differing of opinions seems to be for bundling an ASF Apache
license. Should the project name and copyright be placed in NOTICE? As far as I can tell the
Apache License [1][2] doesn’t contain a requirement for a required 3rd party notice. But
this [3] may mean than name and/or copyright needs to be added to NOTICE.  If this is the
case it would have a large impact on existing (particularly binary) releases. Has there been
a discussion on this, that I may of missed, somewhere that would clarify?

Assembled from here:
(and probably a few other places)


1. <>
2. <>

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