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 10:00:32 GMT
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are
>> specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong.
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable.
> Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one
> from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are "totally" under the Apache
> License 2.0.
>
> I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it
> is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email
> thread that I started last week.
>
> That's not totally true.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope
>>
>> We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we
>> don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the
>> case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license.
>>
>
> The text of the doc you linked is:
>
> "While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache
> licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license
> text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files.
> Alternatively, they may be available separately."
>
> But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been
> licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the
> distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE
> file. So we have documented the license.
>
> The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that
> attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the
> copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it.
>
> I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue.
> Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's
> not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the
> next release.
>
> So the only real issue here that we have included your work without
> attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to
> ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely
> up to you.
>
> There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>

I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are
not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing.
This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a
business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that.

- benoit

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