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: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:54:34 GMT
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > On 02/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
wrote:
>  >  >  > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >  > On 02/04/2008, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >  >  >  On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > <snip>
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  > > I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>  >  >  >  >  > >
>  >  >  >  >  > > Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all
our dependencies in a
>  >  >  >  >  > single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file
which is ASL and
>  >  >  >  >  > then have individual LICENSE files for each library in
the lib/ directory.
>  >  >  >  >  > >
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE
file. In fact, the
>  >  >  >  >  > document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses
to the LICENSE
>  >  >  >  >  > file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license
files. So, IMO, 2)
>  >  >  >  >  > is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  2) is fine so long as the main LICENSE jar tells users where
to find
>  >  >  >  >  the other license - i.e. it  has pointers to the other licenses.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > AIUI this is not policy
>  >  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  My understanding differs, so I think this needs to be resolved and
>  >  >  formally documented.
>  >
>  >
>  > where did you find the rule you based your understanding of policy on?
>  >
>
>  Please see the first message in this thread.

the only reference i could see is to
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html. this is not a normative
document and is not policy. this document is old and CTR so this is
easy to fix to prevent future confusion. (apologies if i've missed a
policy document hopefully you'll jump in and correct me.)

>  We should be making it as easy as possible for users to find the
>  relevant licenses.
>
>  That's presumably why the main license file is only called LICENSE or
>  LICENSE.txt, not license.doc or readme.license etc, and the file is
>  always in the top level directory (or META-INF for jars).
>
>  Why should we force users to go looking around the directory structure
>  to find all the relevant additional licenses?

i'm not arguing about best practice (i too personally prefer
everything in one LICENSE file) but about policy. AIUI policy does not
mandate that all licenses be included in one file. have i missed
normative documentation to the contrary?

there is a subjective element to judging releases in the incubator:
everyone acknowledges that. but it's important to be clearly right
when using policy to justify -1'ing a release. a subjective -1 is much
easier to accept than one based on a contentious reading of
non-normative documentation.

IMO the right way to promote best practice is by positive argument and
example. this means good documentation that positively promote good
practice. the incubator release document really needs a lot more work
before we can even then about trying to gain consensus on it's
contents. it'd be great if you'd write up something on the merits of
including all license information in one file that could be included.

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message