couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:55:43 GMT
On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau <> 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

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.
> 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.


Noah Slater

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