Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dch@jsonified.com designates
 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:07:59 +0200
From: Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Message-ID: <etPan.525ba65f.66334873.3744@akai.jsonified.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKmKYaApDn9+3G_aMqA5qwJCHSgjanXb7HBO75FZiiBgEYGRZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKmKYaDPN=ic468zcowX=cyF69o=ywGbHswzSa220z6_873G8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJNb-9py_9+i=c0grdwrdfLW520P6xGDJkBZTf+ZQPuUVZmffQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPaJBx7YmO-JtLX4f8cAOt_8z_AiVXP1rNhkvOKZpkg69vngeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJNb-9p48qM20A7j7iN_6tmsVSGGuo4yQeBxA+R3tqZb35sopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKmKYaApDn9+3G_aMqA5qwJCHSgjanXb7HBO75FZiiBgEYGRZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 1.5.0-rc.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> On =46ri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>> Benoit, just to address your concerns, the way copyright works is tha=
t if
>>> you don't grant permissions, copyright is in effect in full force. So=
 the
>>> lack of our documenting the licences, in the worst case, might mean t=
hat
>>> you do not have the permission to redistribute, and so on. (Certainly=
 not
>>> that you have permission to do anything you like.) But of course, we'=
ve
>>> verified that from a legal perspective, these files are perfectly fin=
e and
>>> we can distribute them in accordance with our third-party licensing p=
olicy.
>>> So the issue is theoretical only. If someone was to spot the file, an=
d
>>> wonder what the license is, they could ask us, and we could point the=
m to
>>> the mailing list posts, and say =22it's fine, and sorry for the bug, =
we'll
>>> fix it in the next release.=22
>>>
>> The main problem here is that some contents are under different licens=
es
>> like the one for the replication protocol. This is what I'm worried ab=
out.
>> Legally these contents are under the license the author put them until=
 it
>> is specifically mentioned differently in the notice. This is how copyr=
ight
>> work.
>
>Can we reach consensus on this=3F I feel fine with both sides, so that
>doesn't help.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dirkjan
>

Good call. TL;DR:

+0=C2=A0http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

I didn't weight in earlier as I've got nothing directly useful to add.

1. I'm happy with the release =22as is=22 given that we have acknowledged=
 the licence issue already on the ML & the holders of that copyright have=
 granted their consent.
2. If those holders request we roll another release to correct this issue=
, then I'd respect that wish.
3. overall I am +0 on this issue, I'm relaxed and going with the flow.

MfG/Cheers
Dave Cottlehuber