www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:33:05 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 have two questions:

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.

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?

Also, could someone point out where I could find the wording of the  
board's decision regarding the notice that all projects must carry?

thanks
david jencks
>
> ....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
>


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