cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Changes to our LICENSE and NOTICE file
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:54:54 GMT
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chip Childers
<> wrote:
> Hi all,
> <sarcasm>Because legal documentation is so much fun for
> everyone</sarcasm>, I'd like to get a reaction to the following:
> As part of releasing 4.0.0-incubating, we got some feedback from the
> IPMC around the LICENSE and NOTICE file contents. [1]  Specifically,
> the question was raised about removing the license and notice data for
> For the purpose of resolving this in the 4.0 branch, I made a commit
> [2] that added the following heading prior to listing binary
> dependencies that are packaged in the reference package spec / deb:
>     Binary or packaged versions of this software (including versions built from
>     source) contain third party resources (as listed below).
> Recently, the general@i.a.o and legal-discuss@a.o lists have been
> talking about how to help new projects understand how to do LICENSE
> and NOTICE files correctly.  Those discussions resulted in a new page
> [3] on the a.o/dev site, which has further reiterated the concerns
> raised during our vote.
> Leaving the 4.0 branch alone, I'd like to make the following changes
> within master:
> * Remove all binary dependency license and notice info from the top
> level LICENSE and NOTICE files in our source tree
> * Create two copies of the Whisker descriptor.xml file (stored in
> tools/whisker), one that can be used to regenerate the source distro's
> LICENSE and NOTICE files, and one that can generate an appropriate
> LICENSE and NOTICE file for a packaged version of the software.
> * Generate and commit the package LICENSE and NOTICE file to the
> tools/whisker folder.
> * Ask that the folks working on packaging take the (to be committed)
> tools/whisker/LICENSE and tools/whisker/NOTICE files as the correct
> legal documents to include with the package installation.
> After those steps, I'd like to get Whisker working as part of the
> build...  but I think that can wait for a bit more time (another
> release).  Also, the packaging process should probably be provided
> with the EXACT legal docs needed for each package, instead of a
> general purpose ones that include all source and binary legal docs.
> Again, I think this can wait for the next release as well.
> I'll proceed with the changes next week, baring any objections.  I'll
> follow up with Wido, Noa and Hugo on the packaging of the legal docs
> after I get the rest sorted.

I've been following the same conversations, and this course of action
makes sense to me.


View raw message