Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+ULb+tur9a8RSK_DoRtDnoAtovayNFjLG-jC8GZo6P1V95uWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+uujBr40MHYceN_q+SJDQmRh_wOJwFoHjsZa-7dJEmSsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9aa=jDfgNO8N1mi_nfgnifWeoBHHTs=XEeDHz9vK_m0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B6203E.2040506@shanecurcuru.org>
	<CA+ULb+tur9a8RSK_DoRtDnoAtovayNFjLG-jC8GZo6P1V95uWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:11:51 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAOGo0VbXvR-n_vafq6p3RrA3NaKcaG8aHWWQj1BeJ_cQkLpbNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Making license adjustment tools publicly available
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Apache Community Dev <dev@community.apache.org>
Cc: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 7 March 2016 at 01:46, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> To close a loop on this: based on the consensus I created a public
> version of the tools under:
>     http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/comdev/tools/licensing/
>
> My attempts of preserving the history weren't successfully since
> private and public are two different SVN repos (you can't just svn cp/mv).
> I don't think this is that big of a deal, but please let me know if it is.

In such cases it would be helpful to document the original source in
the commit log message.

> Finally, I'd like to remove content of:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/relicense/
> and replace it with a README.txt saying that the content has moved
> to a new public location. Please let me know if that sounds ok.
>
> My final step would be to update a few bits of publicly visible documentation
> to point to a new public location.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>> Christopher wrote on 2/4/16 7:25 PM:
>>> It might be relevant that that both of those tools appear to be licensed
>>> under ASL 2.0, which explicitly permits redistribution (presumably outside
>>> the private area?). I would think it confusing to have an open source
>>> license on software which is expected to remain private, or otherwise
>>> restricted from redistribution. As such, it seems prudent to move them to a
>>> more appropriate area. That's my opinion, anyway.
>>
>> Yes, the Apache license explicitly gives broad permissions.  But the ASF
>> organizationally is very conservative about actually redistributing
>> software.  That is, we *could* legally redistribute some random software
>> we found under AL or MIT or the like, but if someone makes it clear they
>> *didn't* intend to submit it to an Apache project, then we'll generally
>> respect their wishes.
>>
>> In this case, it's all work done by ASF Committers for the purpose of
>> doing work on Apache projects, so I can't see why it would be a problem.
>>  It's most likely that once Apache projects finished updating to 2.0
>> license, no-one bothered to think of these tools again.
>>
>> In any case, I would definitely recommend either testing them, or
>> putting in behavior so that it doesn't actually change files in the
>> default command line (to prevent surprises, if it doesn't work as
>> someone anticipated).
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> a podling recently asked me why:
>>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/relicense/
>>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/tools/copy2license.pl
>>>> are only available to commiters. I see
>>>> no reason why, but of course I'm appreciative
>>>> of the warning here:
>>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/README
>>>>
>>>> Two questions:
>>>>    1. Is there any disagreement that making this tool publically
>>>>     available would be a 'good thing' ?
>>>>     2. Who should bless the svn mv if we all agree?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>>
>>