db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: junit license
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:15:56 GMT
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  Not sure that's correct, the proposed policy indicates an entry in the
>  >  NOTICE file is required.
>  >
>  > </snip>
> >
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
>  Both the previous version of the policy and this one fail to address
>  whether access via Subversion to a library licensed under a
>  non-authorized license (i.e. anything besides a class A license in the
>  policy linked above) is distribution and thus requires addition of
>  notice to the NOTICES file. This is an important question, one worth
>  getting an definitive answer for, but one which I currently don't have
>  the time to chase down. Such libraries are already available via
>  Apache's Subversion server without such notice, demonstrated by the
>  links in my previous mail.

Well, well. As it so happens, just last month there was a discussion
of this on legal-discuss. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].

>From [1]:

"It needs to be in subversion when a third-party something that
requires such a notice is also within subversion."

>From [2]:

"Our subversion is published within our own development groups and
made accessible to third-parties via svn externals.

That publication (even without a formal release) is still under the
terms of our license, and because the ASF requires a couple lines
in NOTICE for all of our projects, the LICENSE and NOTICE files must
be in subversion (typically at the level under trunk).  The contents
are based on the source code within that tree."

>From [3]:

"It is sufficient to assume that people understand hierarchies..."

>From [4]:

"Especially if the project has a link on their developer's "how to
obtain the latest sources from subversion" info page.  There you have
documented how to obtain these *unreleased* sources, and the license
and providence (notice) needs to be especially clear about what they've
checked out or exported."

>From [5]:

"But, if someone were to argue that svn was a distribution, we'd like to
be able to respond, as a backup, that, even if someone mistakenly
thought that svn was intended as a distribution, they still got a
LICENSE and NOTICE file and should still respect them."

And, well pretty much the whole of [6], but for now:

"Contrawise, it's exactly the policy and a good statement of why it
exists; and as you point out it's worth adding to a document somewhere."

So, while not a part of the official policy on the matter, the
not-so-unofficial policy is that if you check it into Subversion,
follow the NOTICE requirements as if it were a release, since
Subversion is publication (from [2]) while not necessarily

The fact that other projects aren't following this exactly is no
excuse for Derby not to be diligent in light of the discussion above.
So, if you want to check junit.jar in to the repository, it should be
ok. Just be sure to follow the requirements in the policy linked
above, as junit.jar is a Class B licensed artifact according to that
policy. Once that has been followed, it should also be acceptable for
us to include it in an official release, since if the policy has been
followed to the letter, all necessary legal requirements should be

Crossing my fingers I didn't mess up the citations, and also I'm not a
lawyer, etc., etc.,

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3cE9D17D5F-3A68-4968-AB26-49586D558B14@gbiv.com%3e

[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c5D96BBC0-F827-4029-90A2-D68B3A25F1BE@gbiv.com%3e

[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA88A.5010502@rowe-clan.net%3e

[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478D0025.80806@rowe-clan.net%3e

[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478CFB06.2080103@apache.org%3e

[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA233.2090605@rowe-clan.net%3e

View raw message