incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: the case of the maven wrapper
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:37:03 GMT
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:22 AM Ignasi Barrera <nacx@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Ignasi Barrera <nacx@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > In the particular case of the "MavenWrapperDownloader.java" file, I would
> > say it is OK not to mention it in the LICENSE/NOTICE files, as per the
> > existing policy [1]. The project does not contain a NOTICE file, so there
> > is nothing to propagate there, and policy says that if the bundled
> > dependency is already ASLv2, there is no need to modify the LICENSE file.
> >
> > IMO, it is fine that the Incubator makes the podlings aware of the "for
> > completeness it is useful to list the products and their versions" part,
> > but just a matter of convenience. The policy is clear, though: it should
> > not be a requirement, and thus the Incubator should enforce that as such
> > (I'm not pretending to say it's doing ti now; just dumping my views).
> >
>
> typo :) s/the Incubator should enforce/the Incubator should *not* enforce/
>

Agreed, +1, there is nothing for us to enforce here.  While it would be
nice to include a mention, the author does not include any NOTICE so there
is nothing for us to propagate to users for a notice that is mandated by
ASF policy nor Apache License.


>
>
> >
> > We can enter the debate about fairness, ethics, etc, and mentioning
> > provenance in the license (but hey, if an ASLv2 licensed project wants to
> > enforce it, it can provide its own NOTICE file). In the end, what is not
> > mandatory in policy should not be a requirement to be implemented by
> > podlings, but a choice of every single community.
> >
> >
> > My $0.02
> >
> > I.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:29, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > If we all say fine.. let's just throw more paperwork at it, I would
> ask
> >> you
> >> > to help draft a line for the NOTICE of what we would do. suppose we
> >> would
> >> > also have to do this for gradle etc.
> >>
> >> You would need to do this for any 3rd party file bundled with a release
> >> and yes sometimes this is complex and takes time. See for example Apache
> >> Newt. [1]
> >>
> >> > So basically if we accept that the new norm is this level of detail on
> >> > incidental files,
> >>
> >> It’s a 3rd party file not an incidental file and the ASF has policy
> >> around what to do when including 3rd party files which a (P)PMC and
> >> releases need to comply with. [2][3]
> >>
> >> To comply however is a simple change that needs to be made once to
> >> clearly inculcate the IP province and license of that file to users of
> the
> >> projects.
> >>
> >> > would it be "this includes source generated by the takari maven
> plugin"?
> >> > and of course if we say this, the next cruft is explaining gradle etc.
> >>
> >> If you don’t know what to do ask you mentors or the IPMC for help. If
> you
> >> disagree with advice given then clarify on legal-discuss.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> 1. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-newt/blob/master/LICENSE
> >> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#goal
> >> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message