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 10:13:49 GMT
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Benoit, you are the rights holder. So whether you are happy with this or
> not is of primary importance. If you said you were happy the lack of
> attribution for this release, I think that would help clear things up.
>
>
you don't understand. This is not bout me or my rights. I only care about
our users and the way they can distribute our code without worrying of the
license or such. Making sure that the promise is also on the paper.

- benoit

>
> On 14 October 2013 12:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Benoit, to clear it up:
>>>
>>>  * Everything is licensed correctly. We have confirmation of this on the
>>> mailing list.
>>>
>>>  * We do not need to alter the LICENSE file. Any sub-components made
>>> available under the Apache License 2.0 do not require us to make any
>>> additional notes in this file.
>>>
>>> * Christopher Lenz's contribution is attributed in the source, but we
>>> should move that to the NOTICE file so that it is in line with standard
>>> procedure.
>>>
>>>  * Your contribution is not attributed. But you could tell us on this
>>> thread that you are happy with that.
>>>
>>> Are you happy with it?
>>>
>>> mail telescoped. I don't have to be happy with this. Never spoke about
>> altering the license file, but documenting the parts that need too.
>>
>>
>> If most people think it's OK to release as is, then go for it. hence my
>> +0.
>>
>> - benoit
>>
>>>
>>> On 14 October 2013 12:00, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>

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