couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirkjan Ochtman <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:58:28 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message