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

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman 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.
>
> Not IMHO… ;-)  If a NOTICE file is absent, ALv2 does not require any action. Most projects, that I'm aware of, do not create attributions in the NOTICE for 3rd party artifacts that are not explicitly required by the 3rd party license. If the Voldemort project wants an attribution, they should create a NOTICE file.
>
> If an apache project wants to create an unnecessary attribution, I'd let them (i.e. I wouldn't -1 the release)… Some people may feel more strongly on this matter… IMO, this does not need to be policy. Rather, it's a decision a project can make on it's own…
>

Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A?

Patrick

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