incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1432804 - /incubator/public/branches/license_howto/licensing_howto.mdtext
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:42:17 GMT
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +Bundling Permissively-Licensed Dependencies
>> +===========================================
>> +
>> +Bundling a dependency which is issued under one of the following licenses is
>> +straightforward, assuming that said license applies uniformly to all files
>> +within the dependency:
>> +
>> +*   BSD (without advertising clause). Including variants:
>> +    *   DOM4J License
>> +*   MIT/X11
>> +*   ICU
>> +*   University of Illinois/NCSA
>> +*   W3C Software License
>> +*   X.Net
>> +*   zlib/libpng
>> +*   FSF autoconf license
>> +*   DejaVu Fonts (Bitstream Vera/Arev licenses)
>> +*   Academic Free License 3.0
>> +*   Service+Component+Architecture+Specifications
>> +*   OOXML XSD ECMA License
>> +*   Microsoft Public License (MsPL)
>> +*   Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
>> +*   Creative Commons Copyright-Only Dedication
>> +*   Python Software Foundation License
>> +*   Adobe Postcript(R) AFM files
>> +*   Boost Software License Version 1.0
>> +*   Eclipse Distribution License 1.0
>> +*   License for CERN packages in COLT but note that this applies only to CERN
>> +    packages in COLT and not others
>
> The above list presumably relates to
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> If so, this link should be documented (bilaterally) please.

Thanks, I've added the "Category A" link.  However, I also delisted most of
those licenses -- the only ones left are those for which procedures with
regards to NOTICE are clearly established: BSD without advertising clause,
MIT/X11 and ALv2.

    http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/branches/license_howto/licensing_howto.mdtext?r1=1432812&r2=1433146

>> +In `LICENSE`, add a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree
>> +and a short note summarizing its licensing:
>> +
>> +    This product bundles SuperWidget, which is available under a "3-clause
>> +    BSD" license.  For details, see deps/superwidget/.
>> +
>
> The license text itself (i.e. BSD) should be included in the LICENSE file.
> The user should not have to wander around the source tree.

Roy Fielding disagrees, and I'm considering this post from him as canon:

    http://s.apache.org/Hqj

    Pointers are sufficient.

    ...

    I know more about the letter and intent of the ASF's license and licensing
    policy than anyone else at the foundation.  This was discussed and
    approved on the licensing list some time ago.

I've added a few links to the howto which justifying certain passages,
including this one:

    http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/branches/license_howto/licensing_howto.mdtext?r1=1433146&r2=1433180

> Best practise is to include the component version info, e.g. SuperWidget 1.234.
> It's not unknown for licenses to change.

I don't recall having seen this recommendation in either documentation or
discussions.  For what it's worth, I disagree that adding the version number
is a best practice -- it's a violation of the DRY principle, and I think the
only thing it guarantees is that committers will fail to update the number in
LICENSE at least some of the time.  I don't see how it will remind people to
check that a license has not changed.  That's important information, but the
appropriate time to verify the license is when updating the bundled bits.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message