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 Wink 1.0
Date Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:45:26 GMT
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> Thanks for the links.  One general comment I have is that I understand
> this is part of the incubation process (and no offense intended to Leo
> since obviously taking energy and time for this) but if I can't look
> and see if other Apache projects are doing things the right way, I
> think we should have more examples of what goes in the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files and points out licenses/situations/projects/wording that
> require that they be put in LICENSE/NOTICE files and not.  It seems to
> be a common sticking point on this list for incubator projects.  I
> would put up a patch for the website but obviously I am still
> learning.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Bryant Luk <bryant.luk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it
>>>> contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it
>>>> should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a
>>>> NOTICE file that has just our standard license header.
>>>
>>> I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus
>>> binary distributions.
>>
>> Yep, I see how it looks like that....though maybe I'm _really_
>> suggesting a source-only distribution :-)
>>
>> Look, the general rule is quite simple: LICENSE files MUST contain all
>> the license information that applies to an artifact, and SHOULD
>> contain only the license information that applies to that artifact.
>> Similarly, NOTICE files MUST contain all the notices that apply to an
>> artifact, and SHOULD contain only the notice information that applies
>> to that artifact.
>>
>> Whenever you violate that SHOULD, you are turning lazyness/sloppiness
>> into a mess for your users.
>>
>> For example, with this current wink distribution, you are (appear to
>> be?) passing on a lot of CDDL obligations down to wink users, which is
>> annoying to users that care about such things. If all your user wants
>> to do is copy/paste the glue code from GzipHandler, that's a rather
>> heavy license to wade through. Similarly, that user of that
>> GzipHandler code now has to copy/paste the entire contents of the
>> NOTICE file.
>>
>> Do you really want to place a burden on your users like that?
>
> I wouldn't, however just out of curiosity, how does this apply with
> Section 4.4 of the Apache license?
>
> "If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within
> such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any
> part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places:
> within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative
> Works;"...
>
> I would consider that a copied portion of just the Apache Wink code to
> be a Derivative Work, and none of the other NOTICE attributions (CDDL)
> apply to the user (hence excluding those notices so their NOTICE file
> is relatively brief).  I'm not a lawyer but just want some
> clarification for this "use case" for personal knowledge.
>
>>> I did some random checking looking at some
>>> source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and
>>> non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE
>>> and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the
>>> dependency binaries in the source archive.
>>>
>>> Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think
>>> this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on
>>> this.
>>
>> Unfortunately, most apache projects are not as good at following
>> policies as they should be, and most engineers (including me! :-) )
>> are not nearly as good at applying legal rules and guidelines as they
>> should be.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>>
>> "What Are The Requirements To Distribute Other Artifacts In Addition
>> To The Source Package?
>> ...
>> Nothing in this section is meant to supersede the requirements defined
>> <here> and <here> that all releases be primarily based on a signed
>> source package."
>>
>>>> The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those
>>>> notices that are actually required by the included library
>>>> dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those
>>>> notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since
>>>> slf4j does not require it.
>>>
>>> I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache
>>> (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a
>>> line).  The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release.  IMHO, this
>>> is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if
>>> it is the right thing to do.
>>
>> Fortunately we have quite a clear rule on this topic these days, so no
>> opinions are necessary:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#notice-content
>>
>> "What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File?
>> ...
>> Only mandatory information required by the product's software
>> licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation."
>>
>> For background color, here's an earlier thread on this list (which is
>> where I learned about the existence of that clear rule):
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200909.mbox/%3Cf767f0600909090615t6582bfd1m36e4d8abe1392b23@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Thanks for the link to the information.  However, I would like to get
> a consensus to make sure that we should not be attributing SLF4J at
> all.
>
> http://slf4j.org/license.html
>
> Just for reference, I see Geronimo and Cassandra attributing in:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/NOTICE
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>
> which I believe have been used in recent release votes.  I'm fine with
> deleting/re-wording the attributions (afterall, less for us to
> maintain) and hope not too troublesome but I would like some consensus
> to make sure that this and future releases are right (without quotes
> ;-) ).
>

I agree with Leo that the LICENSE/NOTICE files in these source
artifacts have unnecessary contents but I also agree with you in what
you point out about section 4.4 of the license and i'm still +1 for
this release, though it would be good to try to remove some of it in a
next release. I expect you'll get a different answer from each person
you ask on whats needed in the NOTICE file, for the SLF4J question
there's a thread [1] and legal JIRA [2] that I think imply you
probably don't really need anything for SLF4J.

   ...ant

[1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/u66o5ucyfquxjl7i?q=LEGAL-59+order:date-forward&page=1
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59

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


Mime
View raw message