couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:05:59 GMT
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Benoit, just to address your concerns, the way copyright works is that
> if
> >> you don't grant permissions, copyright is in effect in full force. So
> the
> >> lack of our documenting the licences, in the worst case, might mean that
> >> you do not have the permission to redistribute, and so on. (Certainly
> not
> >> that you have permission to do anything you like.) But of course, we've
> >> verified that from a legal perspective, these files are perfectly fine
> and
> >> we can distribute them in accordance with our third-party licensing
> policy.
> >> So the issue is theoretical only. If someone was to spot the file, and
> >> wonder what the license is, they could ask us, and we could point them
> to
> >> the mailing list posts, and say "it's fine, and sorry for the bug, we'll
> >> fix it in the next release."
> >>
> > The main problem here is that some contents are under different licenses
> > like the one for the replication protocol. This is what I'm worried
> about.
> >  Legally these contents are under the license the author  put them until
> it
> > is specifically mentioned differently in the notice. This is how
> copyright
> > work.
>
> Can we reach consensus on this? I feel fine with both sides, so that
> doesn't help.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>

Dirkjan,

My +0 means that i don't want to block on that vote. I'm uncomfortable to
release a documentation that isn't totally under the apache 2 license since
I don't know what could be the impact on the distribution of it by others
in their own projects. WHich is the point of using the apache 2 license.
Now I guess it can be OK if we fix in next minor release.

- benoit

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message