incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve release Apache UIMA 2.2.1-incubating
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:49:06 GMT

On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:

> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top  
>>> directory
>>> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize  
>>> this also
>>> needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't  
>>> know that
>>> was considered part of the "distribution".
>>>
>>> Can you please confirm this is the case?  In which case, we'll of  
>>> course
>>> comply.
>>
>> Your distribution must correspond to subversion, otherwise it's  
>> very hard
>> to track the artifacts in the tarball, where they came from, how they
>> got there, and if they underwent the proper oversight prior to  
>> packaging.
>> (Yes, we vote on the prepared tarball, but you can see how  
>> discrepancies
>> do create questions.)
>
> That's not how I interpret the policy document.  It says:
>
> "To apply the ALv2 to a new software distribution, include one copy  
> of the license text by copying
> the file:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
>
> into a file called LICENSE in the top directory of your  
> distribution. If the distribution is a jar
> or tar file, try to add the LICENSE file first in order to place it  
> at the top of the archive."
>
> That's what we do.  Of course we'll make every effort to make
> our distribution easy to review.  However, it does seem that
> we're ok wrt current policy, and view this as a suggestion
> for next time.  Ok?

Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a  
"distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/ 
notice/disclaimer.

--kevan
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message