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 10:18:14 GMT
Dirkjan,

I am not going to discuss this any longer. This is your call. :)

Check out this:

    http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

Specifically, the sections:

    Treatment of Third-Party Works
    NOTICE file

Also, this:

    http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

Specifically these bits:

> Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be
adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file.

(i.e. We only have to put stuff in NOTICE when compelled to do so by the
license.)

This is further expanded on, in this comment:

> When a release contains third party works, the licenses covering those
works may ask that consumers are informed in certain specific fashions.
These third party notices vary from license to license. Apache releases
should contain a copy of each license, usually contained in the LICENSE
document. For many licenses this is a sufficient notice. For some licenses
some additional notice is required. In many cases, this will be included
within the dependent artifact.

Now, check the terms of the Apache License 2.0 itself:

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

Specifically, this bit:

> You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from
the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to
any part of the Derivative Works; and

Note the following facts:

 * Benoit's original work has no copyright notice, so we have not removed
anything. And there is nothing for us to retain.
 * Benoit's work has been licensed to us under the terms of the Apache
License 2.0, so we are free to include it.
 * Adding an attribution for Benoit's work is good practice, but I think
it's a "should" and not a "must".

You have enough votes to do the release, if you feel comfortable with it.

If you do not, you have two primary options:

 * Take this to legal-discuss@apache.org, where you can get a definitive
thumbs up or thumbs down. This could take a few days. And you may only get
advice, not a definitive decision.

 * Re-cut the release, fix the issues, and ask everyone to vote again.


On 14 October 2013 12:08, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 14 October 2013 12:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think
>> that
>> > this issue is important . We should be really strict about that
>> preserving
>> > the spirit of our license.
>> >
>>
>> Please be clear about what you mean when you say "the spirit of our
>> license". Can you describe in concrete terms anything about the current
>> situation that is not in the spirit of our license?
>>
>
> make sure that our code can be reused by anyone without worrying too much
> about license and patent issues.
>
> - benoit
>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

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