www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Jencks (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-26) LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:31:31 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12615452#action_12615452
] 

David Jencks commented on LEGAL-26:
-----------------------------------

Henri, I think you missed the background or point to this question.

Most of the (java) projects I'm involved with are using the maven-remote-resources-plugin
to install (often partially generated) LICENSE and NOTICE files in the generated binary, source,
and javadoc jars.  Thus, each maven module does not have any complete LICENSE or NOTICE file
in svn.

There were some strong statements earlier on legal-discuss that svn checkouts should be considered
distributions and have appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files.  With the use of the m-r-r-p
these aren't going to be the LICENSE and NOTICE files included in the distributed jars, so
what should they be?  My position is that we should only regard "complete projects" as svn
distributions and these should have a single LICENSE/NOTICE file pair applying to the entire
checkout.

Now, people change the code all the time and may not always update LICENSE and NOTICE files
appropriately in the same commit as code changes that make existing LICENSE/NOTICE files inaccurate.
In this situation all we can do is fix problems when they arise or are noticed ("best-effort").
 However, for releases I think its reasonable to expect the pmc to review the accuracy of
the LICENSE/NOTICE files and include that as a criterion in the release vote.  Again in all
the projects I work in a release is marked by an svn tag (copy to "tags/") so to me this seems
to translate to an expectation that svn tags of voted-on releases should have accurate LICENSE
and NOTICE files in svn.

> LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-26
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> www.apache.org documentation/policy make it clear that we have to include a NOTICE/LICENSE
in released package, but a question raise from time to time in mailing lists and big discussions
about the need for a NOTICE/LICENSE in some svn folder.
> I personally don't like to have to do that and I don't share the legal references made
to justify the existence of this policy, but I agree that most people in the legal-discuss
thread back from january agreed on something along these line:
> -------
> expected svn checkout points are supposed to include LICENSE and NOTICE files at their
root covering everything in the checkout, and nothing else.  These should be kept up to date
via "best-effort" by the pmc and committers, and should definitely be accurate for svn tags.
> -------
> The problem with this sentence is "expected checkout" related to the "checkout points"
that is not so defined. Expecially with multimodule maven project: many times people simply
checkout a single module and not the whole project.
> Furthermore the "definitely be accurate for svn tags" is a problem: tags and branches
in svn are simple copies. If that sentence is needed I would suggest to replace it with "for
releases tags".
> Anyway my personal opinion/preference on this "policy" is worthless (I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not an ASF member, I'm a simple PMC committer), I just open this issue because I would
really like to see this policy, a similar policy or something telling there is not such a
policy about NOTICE and LICENSE in svn trees added to this page:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> references:
> http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
> http://markmail.org/message/lbhyjzh5ynizhdx3

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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