incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:55:45 GMT
Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:55:39 -0800:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:22:28PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
> > There are three types of code that will go into the final Apache
> > Bloodhound release:
> > 
> > 1) the original stuff from Edgewall
> > 2) the pre-packaged popular plugins from third-parties
> > 3) original code committed here at the ASF
> >
> > The code under (1) will have its original BSD license. The code from
> > (2) will have its license, or it may be ALv2 if we get SGAs from those
> > developers. And, of course, all code under (3) will be under ALv2.
>  
> Presumably there will be significant modifications to the BSD codebase by
> Apache contributors as time goes along.  If these modifications fall under the
> ALv2, then files with a BSD license header will contain a mix of ALv2 and BSD
> code.  Short of maintaining our contributions as diffs :) how are we to
> communicate which parts of the files fall under BSD and which parts fall under
> ALv2?

Do we need to, or can we simply say "Portions of this file are BSD and
portions ALv2"?

Daniel
(plus, _somebody_ is going to mention that using 'svn blame' and 'svn
cat file.c@LAST_REVISION_OF_CODE_IMPORT' is an option...)

> 
> I have not yet been able to find clear guidance in the existing dev
> documentation.
> 
>     http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> 
>     4. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should
>        typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of
>        the third-party source for convenience.
> 
>     5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
>        case-by-case basis by the PMC.
> 
> There are certainly numerous precedents for bundling of BSD code with Apache
> products, and it is not hard to understand how minor patches here and there
> would work as contributions implicitly licensed under the upstream license.
> But are there any precedents for handling major mods?
> 
> Marvin Humphrey
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message