lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: lia2 tests for branch_3x ?
Date Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:56:40 GMT
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:21:03PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Uwe Schindler <> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't be NOTICE.txt the right place for this?
>> I think NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt is in order to reference the license of
>> 3rd party sources when they are incorporated?
> How is this material coming in to Apache?  Is it being "submitted directly to
> the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent", in which case the following
> applies?

My opinion is that this one applies.

> I had thought that was the case, but if not, then this applies instead and I
> believe usage is more constrained...

And not this one.

> ... though I'm not clear about exactly what the constraints are because the
> license is ASL2.  If it were another license, then usage would definitely be
> more constrained.
> Regardless, NOTICE.txt isn't the place for a link advertising a book.
> (Roy Fielding)
>    Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
>    documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open to
>    anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such notices,
>    and they must not be added where they are not required. Each additional notice
>    places a burden on the ASF and all downstream redistributors.
>    ...
>    If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required to be there, I will
>    remove it as an officer of the ASF.

Right this is my impression to.  Assuming I can somehow negotiate this
b/w Apache and Mannning.... the current plan is description of this
change, link to book's URL, goes in CHANGES.txt, and then any legalese
is added to NOTICE/LICENSE.

>> LIA2's source code is already ASL2, though it is "Copyright Manning" so
>> probably we will need to also put an entry in NOTICE.txt/LICENSE.txt.
> It would be nice if that were not the case, because of the burden on
> downstream.  Why don't IBM, Lucid, Twitter, and so on insist on having their
> copyrights put into NOTICE.txt?  Managing credit on a collective project like
> this is really hard.  IMO, to be fairest to everyone it's best to avoid the
> issue altogether whenever possible.

I completely agree!  I'll see if Manning is amenable.

> Again, this in no way diminishes the value of Manning's potential contribution
> or our gratitude for it.  I just hope Manning understands why accommodating
> their request perhaps isn't as easy as it might have seemed from the outside.

Understood -- I'm trying to explain why these issues are important to
Apache, but, the book publishing world is like a whole new universe
compared to the Apache universe!!  Of course, Manning (and other
publishes) bridge these two universes....


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message