incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:51:46 GMT
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Robert Burrell
Donkin<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, ant elder<ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Craig L Russell<Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ant,
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, sebb<sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >> the NOTICE file looks acceptable to me too.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > AIUI, the NOTICE file needs to give attributions to all 3rd
party
>>>>>> code
>>>>>>  > included in the propose release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no - just require 3rd party attribution notices and relocated
>>>>>>  copyrights (see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice)
>>>>>
>>>>> So all the 3rd party licenses need to be checked to see if they
>>>>> require attribution or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only checked one - Antlr - and AFAICT that does require
>>>>> attribution (notice).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The contents of the NOTICE file is another area I think is not so
>>>> precisely defined.
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice says:
>>>>
>>>> "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>>>> third-party notices"
>>>
>>> The NOTICE file is where downstream consumers of Apache software expect to
>>> find *all* *required* third-party notices.
>>>>
>>>> but there is nothing that defines what are "required third-party
>>>> notices". The ANTLR license (http://www.antlr.org/license.html) says:
>>>>
>>>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>>
>>> When a notice includes the words "required", "must", "shall", or other
>>> imperative, then the notice is considered to be a "required third-party
>>> notice". And it should therefore be placed into the top level NOTICE file of
>>> the distribution.
>>
>> But if thats what we take as the meaning then that would mean the
>> entire ANTLR license should be included in the NOTICE file because the
>> ANTLR license clause is asking for three things to be reproduced:
>>
>> 1) the above copyright notice
>> 2) this list of conditions
>> 3) the following disclaimer
>>
>> So is the suggestion then that all those three things be included in
>> the NOTICE file?
>
> effectively the complete license (including the copyright statement)
> needs to be reproduced:
>
> <blockquote>
> ANTLR3 is:
>  Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terence Parr
>  All rights reserved.
>
>  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
>
>     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
> in the
>  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>    * Neither the name of the author nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>  without specific prior written permission.
>
>  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
>  WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
>  PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
> OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
>  ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>  PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
>  HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
> STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
>  NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
>  POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> </blockquote>
>
>> I've not seen any Apache projects do that.
>
> i don't recall ever seeing that either but we do try to evolve. some
> might interpret the above text as a LICENSE (and not a NOTICE). this
> would then lead to the conclusion that the embedded text version in
> LICENSE would be enough without duplication in NOTICE. (note that this
> argument only applies when the license is embedded in the LICENSE
> document.)
>
> the easiest way to resolve this is just ask the legal committee to
> take and document a decision about interpretation
>

LEGAL-31 looks like it will cover this but its not yet resolved. Other
TLPs and poddlings do releases like this one is, so would it be
possible to get another +1 on this release in the meantime so its not
held up?

  ...ant

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


Mime
View raw message