incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2016 04:22:23 GMT
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:

>> - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, .hpp,
.py. .cpp files)
>
> That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
> they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the licensing BSD
> headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner).

Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
a can of worms.

I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this particular
issue should block a release. If there were no headers there to begin
with, there's nothing illegal as far as I can tell -- it's just that
information about the licensing isn't being conveyed as well as it
could be to consumers for a fairly large number of files.

> Thus I noted this following in LICENSE:
> ===========================================================
> The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License
> header, should be assumed to be coming from previous life of MADlib as a
> BSD licensed project and is available under the following license:
> ===========================================================

Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
legal-discuss), something to the effect of...

  /* This file is available under a BSD-3-clause license -- see LICENSE */

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