incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Making up policy on the fly
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:52:32 GMT
On 19/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>  On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 18/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Ant,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy.
> > > >
> > > > After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so
> many
> > > >
> > > times, I thought the consensus was to put *all* licenses into the top
> level
> > > LICENSE file. But having just scoured the official public pages
> promulgating
> > > policy, I can't find it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's continue the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I still believe that it's bad form to put licenses in several places
> in
> > > >
> > > distributions because users might not find them and thereby not know
> what
> > > they're getting.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You may consider it bad form, but until it is actually documented as
> > > incubator or ASF policy I wouldn't consider it to be enough to block a
> > > release. Especially since I am quite sure there will be a debate about
> > > whether it must be one way or the other.
> > >
> >
> > Surely we should be making things easy for the end-users of the software?
> >
> > AIUI ASF policy is for there to be "no surprises".
> >
> > Having a single starting point - the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the
> > top-level directory - seems to me to be the way to do this.
> >
>
>  I agree.
>
> >
> > It's really unfair to expect end-users to trawl around the directory
> > structure looking for license files, whose names are non-standard.
> >
>
>  I didn't say anything about trawling around the directory structure.

I did not mean to imply that you did ...

> But
> blocking a release because the LICENSE file has a pointer to a directory vs
> including the licenses in the file is inappropriate until either the IPMC or
> ASF documents that.

But the problem was that the Cassandra LICENSE file did neither - it
did not contain the 3rd party licenses, and it did not point to them
either. I do think that's worth fixing before a release (and is why I
mentioned the need to trawl the directory structure).

I don't personally mind which approach is taken, so long as one can
start with the top-level LICENSE file and find all the relevant
licenses from it.

> And I don't mean to imply that you are suggesting that a
> release should be blocked due to that.
>

Not quite, but I am saying that the release should be blocked until
the LICENSE file either contains a copy of each different licence or
has a link to each different license.

The Httpd example posted elsewhere in this thread as a good example of
how to communicate the details to the end-user, and the format is also
reasonably easy to check during release votes.

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

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


Mime
View raw message