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 10:04:30 GMT
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?


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

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