www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:11:22 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. ha scritto:
> David Jencks wrote:
>> 1. Could you explain your concept of "website" as an artifact here?  
>> It seems to me that its entirely possible to view a particular file 
>> via svn without knowing much of anything about what else may be in 
>> svn.  Why isn't it required to include the contents of the NOTICE file 
>> in every source file?  I don't really see how we could expect anyone 
>> to find the applicable NOTICE file in svn otherwise.
> It is sufficient to assume that people understand hierarchies, and that
> for .../src/apache/org/coolclass/coolclass.java, one can find a NOTICE
> and LICENSE in .../src/apache/org/coolclass/, failing that in
> .../src/apache/org/, failing that in .../src/apache/, and finally
> failing that in .../src.  But somewhere in the chain these must exist,
> per ASF policy.

I would hear from a lawyer about this "is sufficient to assume". I never 
ever read something similar. Our source files says "See the NOTICE file 
   distributed with this work". When you download the file from SVN 
there is no NOTICE file distributed with the work (there is no "work" 
concept at all).

>> 2. Assuming that it's plausible for a NOTICE file to be in svn in some 
>> more or less well defined location, what are the PMC responsibilities 
>> for assuring its accuracy?  For instance, suppose someone includes 
>> some source code that requires a change to the NOTICE file, but no one 
>> notices this is necessary for a period of time - a minute, a day, a 
>> week, until the next release.  IIUC one of the major responsibilities 
>> of the PMC vote on a release is to assure the accuracy of the NOTICE 
>> files in it.  Does  regarding the svn repo as a distribution imply 
>> that the PMC must vote on every commit to assure the NOTICE file is up 
>> to date?  If not, what accuracy can we assume in the NOTICE file?
> It's sufficient to correct any oversight the moment it's noticed, and
> there's a reason we call svn management either review-then-commit, or
> commit-then-review.  In both cases there is a *review* :)
> There's a different standard applied to svn vs. a release, as you just
> implied.  That's not a reason to intentionally fail to document the
> NOTICE and LICENSE within the scope of source code they apply to.
>> Also, could someone point out where I could find the wording of the 
>> board's decision regarding the notice that all projects must carry?
> See special order 6C;
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_05_24.txt 

I read the whole minute but I can't understand where it is explained 
that the NOTICE/LICENSE must be in SVN and the "different standard" 
applied to svn and a release.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message