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 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:54:42 GMT
Doug Cutting ha scritto:
>> Do we require a static NOTICE file in subversion?
> Yes, some might consider subversion a distribution.

Well, what's the problem is some (unqualified) user might consider 
subversion a distribution? If they don't find a valid LICENSE and NOTICE 
telling them what they can do with what they downloaded then they can't 
do anything, so we are much more safe by not providing a LICENSE/NOTICE 
file compared to provide one that could be not updated wrt the svn content.

*NOT* having the LICENSE/NOTICE at all would enforce that it is NOT a 
distribution. The ALv2 header says "See the NOTICE file distributed with 
this work" and if you downloaded the file from svn there is no concept 
of "work", neither of "NOTICE file distributed with it".

IMHO if the reasoning behind this thread is that some might consider 
subversion a distribution, then the requirement should be the opposite 
of what is the current policy.

Just my opinion, and IANAL.

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