hadoop-zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:59:42 GMT
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 19:10, Owen O'Malley<oom@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
>
> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>
> The critical reference is:
> http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/autoconf-2.53/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing

I don't think GNU/FSF resources are authorative or in any way
generating binding policy for making releases here at Apache.

> In particular, the files generated by autoconf can be distributed under the
> same license as the rest of the package. Therefore, although the files
> confusing claim to be GPL, they are actually being distributed under the
> Apache license. My understanding is that only used components that have a
> different license need to be in NOTICE. I believe this is a non-issue.
> -- Owen

Again, I'm not claiming this is a license issue.
And for me being a Java weeny it is not immediately obvious that this
is actually a Zookeeper-generated file, not something which is copied
or contributed from somewhere else into svn (otherwise it must be
attributed as such somewhere.)
Looking into svn, I now see this is a generated file, so indeed it
doesn't need to be recorded in the LICENSE file.

One additional question: What would happen if you would distribute
src/c as it is in SVN, namely without all the files from the tar ball?
Would that still work for users?

 Bernd

Mime
View raw message