incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject [DISCUSS] Changes to our LICENSE and NOTICE file
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:49:00 GMT
Hi all,

<sarcasm>Because legal documentation is so much fun for
everyone</sarcasm>, I'd like to get a reaction to the following:

As part of releasing 4.0.0-incubating, we got some feedback from the
IPMC around the LICENSE and NOTICE file contents. [1]  Specifically,
the question was raised about removing the license and notice data for

For the purpose of resolving this in the 4.0 branch, I made a commit
[2] that added the following heading prior to listing binary
dependencies that are packaged in the reference package spec / deb:

    Binary or packaged versions of this software (including versions built from
    source) contain third party resources (as listed below).

Recently, the general@i.a.o and legal-discuss@a.o lists have been
talking about how to help new projects understand how to do LICENSE
and NOTICE files correctly.  Those discussions resulted in a new page
[3] on the a.o/dev site, which has further reiterated the concerns
raised during our vote.

Leaving the 4.0 branch alone, I'd like to make the following changes
within master:
* Remove all binary dependency license and notice info from the top
level LICENSE and NOTICE files in our source tree
* Create two copies of the Whisker descriptor.xml file (stored in
tools/whisker), one that can be used to regenerate the source distro's
LICENSE and NOTICE files, and one that can generate an appropriate
LICENSE and NOTICE file for a packaged version of the software.
* Generate and commit the package LICENSE and NOTICE file to the
tools/whisker folder.
* Ask that the folks working on packaging take the (to be committed)
tools/whisker/LICENSE and tools/whisker/NOTICE files as the correct
legal documents to include with the package installation.

After those steps, I'd like to get Whisker working as part of the
build...  but I think that can wait for a bit more time (another
release).  Also, the packaging process should probably be provided
with the EXACT legal docs needed for each package, instead of a
general purpose ones that include all source and binary legal docs.
Again, I think this can wait for the next release as well.

I'll proceed with the changes next week, baring any objections.  I'll
follow up with Wido, Noa and Hugo on the packaging of the legal docs
after I get the rest sorted.



View raw message