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 10:21:32 GMT
(I have actually convinced myself while sourcing that that we do not even
need to attribute Christopher or Benoit in NOTICE. The only time we should
be moving stuff to NOTICE is when we find copyright statements in the
original works. Neither Christopher's blog post or Benoit's protocol draft
have such notices. And so any attribution we make is for convenience only.)


On 14 October 2013 12:18, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>


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

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