couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:09:19 GMT
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.


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