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 09:42:29 GMT
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> > 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, we have lots and lots of components of CouchDB that are not under
> the Apache license. This is not a problem.


which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are
specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong.



> All that matters is that we have
> the legal right to distribute the bits and bites in the tarball, and that
> our downstream users have the same rights. Which we have established
> on-list, even if it is not documented properly in the tarball itself.
>


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.

- benoit

>
>
> On 14 October 2013 11:34, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > We can do it that way. Or maybe it's easier to just fix it now. Which
> > > license are we missing right now? I gave my agreement last day but
> could
> > be
> > > done in a more formal way until tomorrow if needed.  Still the question
> > is
> > > interesting ;)
> >
> > I think that necessitates another rc cycle. I don't mind so much
> > cutting another candidate, but I wouldn't like to ask our community to
> > run their tests again on a build candidate that's the same from a code
> > point of view. I wouldn't mind short-circuiting the voting, but I'm
> > guessing other people have problems with that.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

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