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: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:42:44 GMT
Three points:

1. If the distribution artifacts have no prohibited code, whether you  
can release them is a separate topic. I don't think that what is in  
SVN whence the release was produced is relevant to whether the release  
is ok.

2. Best practice (IMHO) is to avoid putting prohibited code into SVN  
even for developer convenience. Developers should be able to download  
their own copies of prohibited code and put them into their own  
environments. Scripts that are checked into SVN can make this easier.

3. IIRC, the last time we at legal discussed this issue, we came to no  
conclusion whether SVN was considered a distribution simply because  
someone could check out the code from our working repository. Some  
argued that since the code is available from our repository without  
restriction (no click-through license or disclaimer), then by  
definition it's a distribution. Others argue that Apache makes a huge  
deal of the process of releasing code, producing source and binary  
DISTRIBUTIONs (emphasis is MINE), and voting; and so the artifacts  
that are distributed and mirrored worldwide are our distributions, not  
the SVN artifacts.

4. IANAL (and apparently can't count either).

Craig

On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:

> The code that we strip out from our release archives is *not*
> compliant with the licensing requirements, which is why we strip it
> out (it depends on LGPL or other such licenses).
>
> Basically, the code in question is a set of demos and a sample service
> provide -- our core project does not depend on anything that's not
> Apache-license-friendly.  And our release archives only contain the
> core platform.  But the other stuff is in SVN to allow us to build
> live demos that we can show on the Wiki and such.
>
> -T
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>  
> wrote:
>> Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>
>>> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
>>> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip  
>>> out
>>> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution  
>>> without
>>> the offending code.
>>>
>>> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
>>> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
>>> distribute?  I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
>>> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
>>> complicates our build process a little.
>>>
>>> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this  
>>> question
>>> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -T
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message