On 19-Jan-2018, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes: > > > That does require “Derivative Works […] must include a readable > > copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file > > […] in at least one of the following places: […] within the Source > > form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative > > Works; […]”. > > > Do you think the routine inclusion of those notices, in the package's > > ‘copyright’ file, does not satisfy [Apache License 2.0 §4(d)]? > > It does if you actually include the entire contents of NOTICE in the > copyright file Why the entire contents? The only thing that clause requires is “the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file”. Do you think that clause requires duplicating, in addition to the attribution notices, anything extra from the ‘NOTICE’ file? > Perhaps you were under the assumption that the NOTICE file contains > only the copyright and license statement that we would naturally put > in debian/copyright anyway? I find the Apache License 2.0 §4(d) requires duplication of *only* the attribution notices. That is satisfied by adhering to Debian's own requirements for the ‘copyright’ file. > While there are other ways to satisfying the Apache 2.0 requirement, > I strongly believe that the best approach for *Debian* as a whole to > take is to just routinely install the NOTICE file as part of the > package documentation. I think this would be entirely superfluous with the general Debian requirements for *all* its packages. I would like to know why you think more is required than what we already routinely transcribe into the ‘copyright’ file. -- \ “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone | `\ else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a | _o__) quotation.” —Oscar Wilde, _De Profundis_, 1897 | Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature