incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: Multi-licensed dependencies
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:38:38 GMT
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> Personally, I agree with Roy.  Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
>>> the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
>>> permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to
>>> distribute a product bundling such a dependency without explicitly justifying
>>> our usage, and legally OK for a downstream consumer to distribute a product
>>> bundling ours which asserts usage of the dependency under a different
>>> rationale.
>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
>> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package),
>> wherein the dependency licenses are in separate files near the dependency.
> However, this does not agree with the following [1]:
> ...
> 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.
> <<<
> [1]

...the license file SHOULD contain ...

I believe at least some of these
how-to-put-the-license(s)-into-the-file(s) statements are not
necessarily backed up by "it must be this way legally" or "this is
unambiguously always the best way" kind of thoughts, but more by "this
is a good standard way to do it, that is easy to do and
(automatically) verify". So Roy saying "I prefer" does not necessarily
conflict with the SHOULD in the policy.

I very much like the approach where the Incubator teaches the
documented policies that have been defined by Legal. While it's
probably good to have Roy's preferences (which I trust are good ones)
reflected in our policy docs, that should happen via legal-discuss in
this case, and even after that, we should not change what we teach our
podlings until the docs have changed. It gets way too confusing way
too quickly, otherwise.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message