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: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-beta1
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:01:07 GMT
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, ant elder<ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

i was thinking about guidance on the specific (and a little unusual) case of BSD

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message