incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Kirkwood <dang...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:58:52 GMT
You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
we understand what's expected..).  The effort is in going thru the
voting process again..

I'll go with whatever you recommend..

thanks.. Dan

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
> file.  Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
> it.  I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
> requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
> (however, I can't imagine copy and pasting license contents is difficult).
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM Dan Kirkwood <dangogh@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks,  Alex..
>>
>> John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
>> any other major issues?
>>
>> thanks..  Dan
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <dangogh@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Thanks,  John..   I'm confused on this.   According to
>> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>> >>
>> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>> >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>> >>
>> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard?  And in that case,  do we need a
>> >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>> >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
>> >
>> > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
>> >
>> >     This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
>> >     MIT license.  For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
>> >
>> > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
>> > in the release package.  MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
>> > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
>> > project-specific copyright.  The pointer isn't supposed to be a
>> > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
>> > advised you to fix that in the next release.  IMO, it isn't a major flaw
>> > for an incubating release.
>> >
>> > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
>> > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
>> >
>> > Of course, I could be wrong...
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>

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


Mime
View raw message