incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004 incubating
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:00:50 GMT
On 3/29/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:22 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 3/28/07, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
> >> Hi Robert,
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking your time and looking at this release.  To
> >> answer your
> >> questions:
> >>
> >> The files *.csproj, and *.sln are the Visual Studio.NET project
> >> files --
> >> those are auto generated and thus I can't edit them outside the
> >> IDE -- the
> >> same goes to the few *.cs files that you noticed as well as the
> >> few *.xml
> >> and *.html files that you highlighted.
> >
> > yeh
> >
> > IMHO it's pretty naffy that you can't add headers but that's life, i
> > suppose - or at least m$
> >
> >> For the file,
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/
> >> contrib/Snowball.Net/Test/Analysis/Snowball/TestSnowball.cs where
> >> you pointed out the use of the old style Apache License, it looks
> >> like
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-update-scripts
> >> didn't do the job well here.  This is an original work -- will
> >> this issue prevent a release?.
> >
> > different people have different opinions :-/
> >
> > (hopefully people will jump in here)
>
> Thanks for the invitation. ;-)
>
> Projects without authorship of files should not be in the business of
> changing other projects' licenses.

in general, yes

but AIUI the document in question is a port of a jakarta lucene
original. the original is covered by a CLA as were the changes. if
this is the case, the whole is covered by a CLA AIUI and the license
can be upgrade from 1.1 to 2.0.

> It seems to me that if the file in question has not been kept current
> with the latest Apache copyright notice, then the only thing that you
> can do is to leave it intact. If there is a later version of the same
> file with the Apache V2 license, I'd strongly encourage you to
> replace the older version. [That way, you don't have to keep
> answering the same questions.]

if it's an original work created for apache covered by a CLA then the
license can be upgraded. AIUI this is true in this case.

> But I see nothing wrong with distributing a file in either source or
> binary form that plainly states that it is licensed under Apache v1.1.

in this case it should be noted in the NOTICE and licensed in the
LICENSE. AIUI it is not.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message