Legal Discuss
  1. Legal Discuss
  2. LEGAL-59

Is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of 3rd party licensing policy?

    Details

    • Type: Question Question
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      BSD license family template [1] includes the clause:

      • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

      My reading is that this means that the complete license [1] must be reproduced when a binary is included within an Apache release

      This leads to the question: is the BSD License a NOTICE for the purposes of 3rd party licensing policy?

      Robert

      [1]
      Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
      All rights reserved.

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

      • Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
      • Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

      THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

      1. bsd.patch
        1 kB
        Robert Burrell Donkin

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Robert Burrell Donkin created issue -
          Hide
          Craig L Russell added a comment -

          Re-reading this again, I think that the BSD license template suitably modified for the copyright holder and release dates is a LICENSE and therefore needs to be reproduced in its entirety in the LICENSE file of a distribution.

          The NOTICE file of a distribution should state which components are covered by which license.

          So in the case of ANTLR, recently discussed on the mail lists, the complete license from http://www.antlr.org/license.html , beginning with the phrase "ANTLR 3 License" goes into the LICENSE file. Then, the NOTICE is something like:

          "The antlr-3.1.3.jar is distributed under the terms of the ANTLR 3 License."

          There is an interesting discussion in wikipedia on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

          Show
          Craig L Russell added a comment - Re-reading this again, I think that the BSD license template suitably modified for the copyright holder and release dates is a LICENSE and therefore needs to be reproduced in its entirety in the LICENSE file of a distribution. The NOTICE file of a distribution should state which components are covered by which license. So in the case of ANTLR, recently discussed on the mail lists, the complete license from http://www.antlr.org/license.html , beginning with the phrase "ANTLR 3 License" goes into the LICENSE file. Then, the NOTICE is something like: "The antlr-3.1.3.jar is distributed under the terms of the ANTLR 3 License." There is an interesting discussion in wikipedia on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
          Hide
          Henri Yandell added a comment -

          Repeating from thread on list - not needed imo. We repeat the license in LICENSE or elsewhere in the distribution, which covers this attribution requirement.

          Show
          Henri Yandell added a comment - Repeating from thread on list - not needed imo. We repeat the license in LICENSE or elsewhere in the distribution, which covers this attribution requirement.
          Hide
          Sebb added a comment -

          So what constitutes a "required notice"?
          i.e. exactly what wording does require an entry in the NOTICE file?

          Show
          Sebb added a comment - So what constitutes a "required notice"? i.e. exactly what wording does require an entry in the NOTICE file?
          Hide
          Sam Ruby added a comment -

          For clarity: the MIT License requires that the copyright and permission notices be included in the distribution, so the question isn't whether we need to include that information at all, but which file that information must be contained in.

          I would not object to that information being contained in either the NOTICE or README file.

          Show
          Sam Ruby added a comment - For clarity: the MIT License requires that the copyright and permission notices be included in the distribution, so the question isn't whether we need to include that information at all, but which file that information must be contained in. I would not object to that information being contained in either the NOTICE or README file.
          Hide
          Craig L Russell added a comment -

          Hi Sam,

          I hope your comment was a typo, and you meant:

          I would not object to that information being contained in either the NOTICE or LICENSE file.

          Craig

          Show
          Craig L Russell added a comment - Hi Sam, I hope your comment was a typo, and you meant: I would not object to that information being contained in either the NOTICE or LICENSE file. Craig
          Hide
          Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

          Here's a first draft/strawman patch for resolved.html

          Feel free to rework or just start again

          Show
          Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Here's a first draft/strawman patch for resolved.html Feel free to rework or just start again
          Robert Burrell Donkin made changes -
          Field Original Value New Value
          Attachment bsd.patch [ 12416918 ]
          Hide
          William A. Rowe, Jr. added a comment -

          Craig is correct; comment 1 properly summarizes the solution.

          Show
          William A. Rowe, Jr. added a comment - Craig is correct; comment 1 properly summarizes the solution.
          Hide
          Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

          The LICENSE needs to state which components are covered by which license. As far as policy goes, the NOTICE just needs required third party notices and relocated copyrights. I'm not unhappy about including extra information (such as copyright and licenses) in the NOTICE but unless care is taken with phrasing it does make things difficult downstream since the NOTICE must be distributed even though this information may now be inaccurate.

          For example, if the NOTICE contains the statement:

          "foo.jar is copyright Bar and is licensed under the FooBar License http://www.example.org/foobar.txt"

          then this may no longer be accurate in a distribution containing a different jar named 'foo.jar' which was created by someone else.

          Show
          Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - The LICENSE needs to state which components are covered by which license. As far as policy goes, the NOTICE just needs required third party notices and relocated copyrights. I'm not unhappy about including extra information (such as copyright and licenses) in the NOTICE but unless care is taken with phrasing it does make things difficult downstream since the NOTICE must be distributed even though this information may now be inaccurate. For example, if the NOTICE contains the statement: "foo.jar is copyright Bar and is licensed under the FooBar License http://www.example.org/foobar.txt " then this may no longer be accurate in a distribution containing a different jar named 'foo.jar' which was created by someone else.
          Hide
          Henri Yandell added a comment -

          Can this be resolved?

          Show
          Henri Yandell added a comment - Can this be resolved?
          Henri Yandell made changes -
          Link This issue incorporates LEGAL-62 [ LEGAL-62 ]
          Hide
          Henri Yandell added a comment -

          Only concern with the patch is that it's BSD specific. It applies to most attribution licenses.

          Show
          Henri Yandell added a comment - Only concern with the patch is that it's BSD specific. It applies to most attribution licenses.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Robert Burrell Donkin
              Reporter:
              Robert Burrell Donkin
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:

                Development