incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.9.1 RC1
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:05:11 GMT
Hi,

> which as I understand it is the preferred way to include MIT-style licenses
> in LICENSE.txt.

That is the case. However other MIT license software include the LICENSE text are included
in full (e.g. UTF-8 Library, epoch, jQuery).

In all cases they are bundled with the source so I don’t see why they are treated differently
or why boost comes after the confusing part in the the LICENSE file.

AFAICS re that part:
- Point “a” is incorrect as boost is bundled in the source code.
- Point “b” while legally correct doesn’t follow current ASF legal advice. [1] (i.e.
add a pointer to the license to LICENSE)
- Point “c” is also against policy, only things bundled need to be mentioned. [2] Having
extra stuff in LICENSE is not an licensing error but it makes the situation a little confusing
IMO.

> Good point. This isn't new in this release, but we should address it. Do
> you think a README file in this directory would be sufficient?

Totally up to the PPMC, as long as users know what is going on and aware how they are licensed.

As these files are bundled in the source release are their licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
(again see [2])

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-works-placed-in-the-public-domain-be-included-in-apache-products
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message