incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Podling Graduation Rally
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:29:43 GMT
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:31 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
>> >> re-licensed?
>> >
>> > Think of each file as the result of layering changesets on top of each
>> > other.  Each changeset has its own copyright holder and each copyright
>> > holder grants a license.
>> >
>> > When all changesets have the same license, then the end product has
>> > uniform licensing, even though many entities hold continue to hold
>> > copyright.
>> >
>> > However, it is also possible that changesets may be granted under
>> > different licenses -- in which case, the end product has heterogeneous
>> > licensing.  It may not be possible to slice up the file into code blocks
>> > which are under one license exclusively. Instead, if you want clean
>> > divisions by license you have to go back to the changesets.
>> >
>> > For BSD-2-clause files which came in with MADlib but were not relicensed
>> > (because not all authors participated in the SGA), we are saying that
>> > changesets submitted after arrival at the ASF shall be under Apache-2.0.
>>
>> I think we all agree on what's going on and I believe (although correct
>> me if I'm putting words in your mouth John) that we all feel the current
>> situation with MADlib is NOT against any policy of ASF.
>>
>>
> Not 100%.  We are saying that code modifications should have been under
> apache license, but they were still under BSD as of the release from last
> year.  Its nothing that I believe would have put the foundation in any
> negative situation.

The ARE under Apache License -- we are all in agreement there. We simply
lack tools to make this very fine grain statement.

Does it make it clearer? Are we in agreement now?

Thanks,
Roman.

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


Mime
View raw message