couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: (lack of) couchdb windows binaries
Date Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:52:29 GMT
(Sending again to keep the thread alive, sorry for the mis-reply)

--

Okay, I did some research and came across

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

Our dependencies are:

 - Erlang, http://erlang.org/ License EPL: http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/lang/erlang/EPLICENSE
 - Spidermonkey, Mozilla's JavaScript engine, http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/ License
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license
 - ICU, IBM Components for Unicode, http://icu-project.org/ License ICU (MIT like: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html)

And the URL above clearly states that we can ship binaries with these included if we label
the binary accordingly.

So I think there is no legal issue and we can proceed as planned (see my next mail).

I mentioned a potential legal issue to Mark on IRC just because I wasn't sure about the situation
but I *was* sure that I wanted to be rather safe than sorry.

Cheers
Jan
--

On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:09, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> I'm on it.
> 
> Mark, aside from Erlang, Spidermonkey and ICU, are there any other pieces in the installer,
like Windows dev-tools/libs?
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:00, Noah Slater wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 02:03, Mark Hammond wrote:
>> 
>>> Great - it can be found at http://people.apache.org/~mhammond/dist/0.11.0/
>> 
>> Would you like to call the vote on this yourself? If you prepared the Windows artefacts,
and called the vote, that should remove the dependancy chain between me and you - as well
as speeding things up quite a bit, and taking a little bit of the load of my back. Can I just
double check that you prepared this from THE source artefact?
>> 
>>> Sorry, but this needs to be undertaken by someone who actually believes there
is an issue and can articulate it.
>> 
>> Not true, it just needs to be done by someone who understands how the package is
built.
>> 
>> The purpose of legal-discuss is for developers who generally don't know or care about
the legal things to get a "yea" or a "nay" from people who do. It would be enough simply for
you to tell them what you've put into the artefact, and how it's built, and then just ask
them for a thumbs up before the vote.
>> 
>> To re-itterate, you don't have to think there is a problem, or describe any legal
issue. All you have to do is provide a description of how you packaged CouchDB for Windows,
and ask them for approval. They may ask you a few technical questions (ones which I could
not answer, for example - and I don't fancy playing chinese whispers for people) to get clarification
on a few points - but it shouldn't be anything you can't answer.
>> 
>> If you're going to be part of the release process here, it would make sense for you
to get involved with legal-discuss.
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message