Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a "System Requirement"
or "Optional Plugin", then you don't need it.

ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depends on BDB Java
Edition, which I think was discussed at length some years ago on
legal-discuss@ but is not mentioned explicitly on
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. I think the problem is that
it seems to demand that all downstream users must ship source code,
i.e. some odd form of virality. Even more reasons to check with the
Legal committee...

Cheers
Niclas

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>
>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>
> Hm, it does have a notice, it's pretty big/hairy:
> https://github.com/voldemort/voldemort/blob/master/NOTICE
>
> perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better, 4.4 addresses
> "Derivative Works", which afaict whirr is not:
>
> ""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
> purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works
> that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
> interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."
>
> as whirr is "merely linking to the interfaces of" the work (whirr
> pulls in the jar file of/from voldemort) and not making any
> revision/annotation/....modifications of the original. Am I not
> reading that right? (IANAL)
>
> I also notice in 4.4 where is says "excluding those notices that do
> not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works". Given that whirr is
> only including a single jar - from voldemort itself, not
> jetty/junit/etc... would it not be correct to say that these other
> notices do not pertain to whirr's use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org