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 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:05:11 GMT

On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:02 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2008 9:20 AM, simon <simon.kitching@chello.at> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, while this answer is probably right, it isn't from a
>> lawyer.
>> It appears that we will need to contact the ASF board and push  
>> them into
>> organising someone to answer this rather than just hoping to get a  
>> truly
>> official answer via this list.
> To be clear, it's not a matter of law, it's more a matter of policy.
> I think the posts that were made subsequent to yours (specifically
> Roy, Bill, and Doug's) clarify the situation well-enough.  -- justin

Unfortunately I am still swimming in a sea of mud.  It's clear that  
we need to have LICENCE and NOTICE files in svn that are easily found  
when checking out some unit of code, but its also clear that at least  
this NOTICE file has no necessary relationship to any NOTICE file in  
any particular released artifact.  Doug's comments

<Now that you've asked whether it's required, the answer has become

> "yes", since it's a good idea to include it, it causes no harm and
> inflicts no unreasonable burden.
> >

seem to me to discount the pain many projects have had in keeping  
hundreds of identical copies of LICENSE and NOTiCE files in svn and  
that has resulted in a lot of effort being put into making the maven- 
remote-resources plugin work.  Despite his assertion I don't  
understand how its a good idea to have hundreds of duplicate files in  
svn, how that can be thought to cause no harm, or how maintaining  
them is a reasonable burden.  Hopefully I'm misunderstanding what is  
being suggested as policy.

Lets look at an abstract of the structure of a project for which this  
gets to be an issue:

  - modules/
  -- p1
  -- p2
  - components
  -- c1
  -- c2
  -- c75

Lets also predicate that this project is built with maven, which  
means in particular that anything going into an artifact, say for p1,  
has to be in p1, not trunk/ or modules/.

I'd like to suggest that it might be reasonable to consider:
-- there should be LICENSE and NOTICE files checked into svn at  
trunk/ that apply to all the code under trunk. -- however, these  
files would not be the files included in any artifact: those would be  
generated by maven-remote-resources or some other method.

This provides easy to find files for those looking at the expected  
svn checkout but allows automation efficiencies for released artifacts.

Is this scheme comprehensible and acceptable?

david jencks

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