incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Making up policy on the fly
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:22:23 GMT
So I found it: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html

Please take a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses

  [1]

If this document is not normative, please let me know. Granted, it  
says "should" and not "must", so if there is a discussion presumably  
it's about whether "should" means "must".

Otherwise, let's shut this discussion down and start following the  
rules.

Craig

[1] If An Artifact Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It  
Contain Several License Files?
No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE file.

When an artifact contains code under several licenses, the LICENSE  
file should contain details of all these licenses. For each component  
which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and the license  
under which the component is distributed should be appended to the  
LICENSE file.

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE is an  
example.


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.
>
> It's really unfair to expect end-users to trawl around the directory
> structure looking for license files, whose names are non-standard.
>
> It's really not very much to ask; and it only has to be done once for
> each 3rd party library.
>
> Yes it's tedious to get things set up initially, but the benefit of
> such standardisation is to make it much easier for the end-user, which
> is surely what we should be aiming for.
>
>> 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
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message