incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC2
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:20:02 GMT
On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert <tvolkert@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
>  > >  > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
>  > >  > the full text.
>  > >
>  > > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk.  Given that we got it from
>  > >  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/, which is the license
>  > linked to
>  > >  off the silk icon home page, should this block a release?
>  >
>  > Yes, because it's not actually the license.
>  >
>
>
> I'm adding the full license to the trunk now, but with all due respect, I'm
>  gonna wait for an IPMC opinion on this one, since we've already gone out
>  with the 1.1 and 1.2 releases with the existing license (and since this is
>  an incubating release).  Don't get me wrong: I'm not against re-tagging if
>  it's required; but no sense in calling off the vote prematurely.
>
>
>  >  > For 3rd party libraries which use the AL 2.0 license (e.g. Smack &
>  > >  > Groovy) for completeness this should be noted in the LICENSE file.
>  > >
>  > > the NOTICE file says which items are Apache 2.0 licensed, and the LICENSE
>  > >  file contains the Apache 2.0 license text.  Is this not sufficient?
>  >
>  > It would make life a lot easier for users (and reviewers) if the
>  > LICENSE file had the complete list.
>  >
>
>
> Just to be clear what you're saying, you want something like the following
>  at the very top of the LICENSE file:
>
>  "For Apache Tomcat's Servlet 2.5 implementation, the Smack Jabber API, and
>  the Groovy scripting engine:"
>
>  Saying that they're Apache 2.0 licensed in the NOTICE file would seem to be
>  sufficient, given that users and reviewers will see the Apache license at
>  the top of the LICENSE file.  The other licenses are shown to what they
>  pertain because otherwise it'd be hard to search for them in the LICENSE
>  file.
>
>  If we add the afformentioned line at the top, should we also add "and for
>  Apache Pivot"?  Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, it seems
>  like we're catering to the lowest common denominator here.

Have a look at how Photark have done it:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/tags/M1-incubating-RC4/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE

>
>  >  > The NOTICE file mentions VMWare, but fails to mention any associated
>  > >  > license.
>  > >
>  > > That's because VMware maintains a copyright ownership over the code
>  > >  contributed to the ASF, as described in the "Overview" and "Source File
>  > >  Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" sections of the ASF Source Header
>  > and
>  > >  Copyright Notice Policy (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html).
>  > >  This copyright notice is pursuant to ASF copyright notice policy.
>  >
>  > That's why there is a mention in the NOTICE file, but surely there
>  > must be some license associated with the VMWare code? What is it, and
>  > where is it?
>  >
>
>
> Actually, IANAL, but I think you're wrong.  VMware hasn't licensed the file
>  to the ASF - they've donated it to the ASF -- but are still covered by
>  copyright protection.
>

IANAL either, but in that case, presumably the code is now under AL 2.0.

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


Mime
View raw message