Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jta@bristowhill.com designates
 75.180.132.120 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <47B5CB9E.9090405@bristowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:27:58 -0800
From: "Jean T. Anderson" <jta@bristowhill.com>
Reply-To: jta@bristowhill.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: junit license
References: <47B372F9.5010101@sun.com>
	 <54ac72d70802131633i48b5e7bbs88f8b906a27799cc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47B3CF78.8030605@apache.org>
	 <54ac72d70802140007h6b1766a0ie7640d0aa36b8f45@mail.gmail.com>
 <54ac72d70802142315m1db30e49x4b6f53b591468834@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54ac72d70802142315m1db30e49x4b6f53b591468834@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andrew McIntyre wrote:
...
> 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].
>
>   
...
> 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
> distribution.
>
> 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
> satisfied.
>
> Crossing my fingers I didn't mess up the citations, and also I'm not a
> lawyer, etc., etc.,
> andrew
>
>   

Thanks for doing the research on this, Andrew, and I agree.  I've 
watched the debates over the last couple years over whether the code in 
svn constitutes a release (not surprisingly, there are diverse 
opinions). It's better to provide info in the NOTICE where it may not be 
strictly required (or may not seem to be), than to miss including info 
that turns out to be required.

 -jean

> [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
>