www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:18:38 GMT

On Jan 13, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Our subversion is published within our own development groups and
>>> made accessible to third-parties via svn externals.
>>
>> I'd like another opinion on this. I've not heard this view  
>> expressed by anyone else. But perhaps I misunderstand.
>>
>> To me, there is a very big difference between making an svn  
>> repository available for checkout by the public over which Apache  
>> has commit control; and having a release artifact that is  
>> replicated, mirrored, and under which Apache no longer has any  
>> effective control.
>
> Copyright law has no concept of software development.  So, when a  
> lawyer
> looks at
>
>    http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>
> what the lawyer (or even layperson) sees is a website.
>
>> Maybe you could point to some documentation that makes your point  
>> that the Apache svn repository is itself a distribution subject to  
>> LICENSE and NOTICE requirements.
>
> The NOTICE file exists to fulfill our obligations under our license
> and the licenses of any third-party code that we redistribute.
> We try to be as proactive about that as possible.  The NOTICE is
> in subversion because the board added a notice that all of our
> projects must carry.  It needs to be in subversion when a
> third-party something that requires such a notice is also within
> subversion.  Finally, each release package's NOTICE must reflect
> all of the required notices of all of the parts within that package.
>
> Whether or not all three are the same static file or each one
> is dynamically constructed based on the package/tree in question
> just doesn't matter.  What matters is that the required notices
> are always in the relevant NOTICE when they are required.

I'm afraid that this doesn't address my question for a pointer to  
where it is documented.

I don't think this email thread archive qualifies as the definitive  
policy. :-(

Craig
>
> ....Roy
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message