www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:20:13 GMT
On Jan 15, 2008 11:10 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> Henri Yandell ha scritto:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 15, 2008 10:10 AM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> >>> Please.
> >>>
> >>> If we are supposed to take the content of this thread as "clarif[ied]
> >>> the situation well-enough" then I have a huge issue. The main thing
> >>> that the board has responsibility for is clarity on legal issues.
> >>>
> >>> Dropped ball is how I see it.
> >> The fact that you don't like the answers provided isn't necessarily a
> >> symptom of a dropped ball.  -- justin
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > * Put NOTICE/LICENSE in your intended checkout locations.
>
> "checkout" location may have a meaning for the PMC of a given project
> but not for the random user. If the NOTICE is there to tell the random
> user downloading random files what he can do then we probably put a
> NOTICE file in each folder.

It's a loose description, but it has solid meaning. Another way to
describe it would be 'locations from which your projects can be
built'. Root of your releasables. Whatever.

Jencks has a good example where there are lots of releasables. Each
time I worked on said projects (Geronimo/Maven), I didn't check out
things individually but checked the whole thing out and did big
builds. Commons on the other hand, with similar number of releasables,
intends for the releasables to be more independent and checking them
out on their own makes more sense.

That may just be my approach to Maven/Geronimo development.

> Has the folder some special legal meanings?

Legal wise; you'll have to get Roy's view. My understanding with SVN
vs distribution from Cliff was that we were less concerned with SVN as
that was a pull mechanism - we're not actively telling users to go do
these things. Thus having LGPL in SVN was not ruled out but having it
in a distribution that we were telling people to download was. This is
akin to why we don't point to svn and snapshots from the download
page.

I think NOTICE/LICENSE should be there because it's a common and well
understood approach. Having to build a project to find out the
licensing terms of trunk is very lame.

> Wouldn't it be better to make sure that http browsing of the svn
> repository return *always* a disclaimer claiming that it is not a
> distribution and pointing people to real/official release distributions?

Unnecessary work imo.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message