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 22:10:47 GMT
Hi Roy,

On Jan 11, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2008 7:53 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I think the answer is:  "No, but it's nice".  Equivalent to the
>>>> question of whether the website should have a page saying what the
>>>> license is.
>>> I disagree - I think all of our projects have to have LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE in SVN.  Not having them is silly.  Otherwise, where would
>>> their NOTICE file be kept?  -- justin
>> As you may have noticed from lots of posts recently, the maven- 
>> remote-resources plugin uses a (configurable) template to generate  
>> NOTICE files from other project information and uses an (again  
>> configurable) LICENSE file from a (configurable) resource bundle.   
>> Could you explain why it is more silly to use this customized  
>> generation strategy than to have hundreds of identical copies of  
>> the apache license in a project's svn?
>> One possible danger of including the NOTICE file in svn is that  
>> it's likely to be audited by the PMC only when a release is  
>> prepared.  Including it in svn may imply to the unwary observer  
>> that it is accurate at all times.  Wouldn't requiring it to be  
>> accurate at all times mean the PMC would have to vote on the  
>> NOTICE file after every commit?
> 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.

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.


> That publication (even without a formal release) is still under the
> terms of our license, and because the ASF requires a couple lines
> in NOTICE for all of our projects, the LICENSE and NOTICE files must
> be in subversion (typically at the level under trunk).  The contents
> are based on the source code within that tree.
> Tweaking maven such that it appends to the NOTICE file any additional
> missing (non source tree) required notices for a particular build is
> okay, though I bet it will be error-prone.
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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!

View raw message