Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <75CD60F0-ECC5-4A34-996E-C4291A72CCE0@yahoo.com>
References: <25aac9fc0712171137q67c3a7cfu5012b10da9f52725@mail.gmail.com>
 <1198105388.6186.16.camel@localhost>
 <55afdc850801110415g42f5c23epb0e6a4f87958a656@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d12b2f00801110753g87a591al6fc9eb334d994920@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c902b9e0801111007kaee1e50ub53839b7751c08c3@mail.gmail.com>
 <75CD60F0-ECC5-4A34-996E-C4291A72CCE0@yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5D96BBC0-F827-4029-90A2-D68B3A25F1BE@gbiv.com>
Cc: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:14:36 -0800
To: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>

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.

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