www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:29:26 GMT
On 19/04/2009, Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com> wrote:
> El jue, 16-04-2009 a las 22:52 -0700, Ralph Goers escribió:
>
> > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>  >
>  > >
>  > > On 17/04/2009, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> I don't think this is a valid comparison. The Adobe bits of a
>  > >> Photoshop file are syntax, not semantics, which is what is being
>  > >> discussed. If a particular Photoshop file contained imagery that's
>  > >> not
>  > >> compliant with ASF legal requirements, then the file should probably
>  > >> be removed.
>  > >
>  > > OK, my apologies. I thought we were talking about a legal copyright
>  > > issue rather than a philosophical distinction. I do believe this is
>  > > such a far reaching decision that there needs to be some clear
>  > > guidance to PMCs about:
>  > >
>  > > * what is allowed to remain in svn history (that is, files which are
>  > > not in the latest revision). This is relevant to how a project
>  > > preserves their history from being in the incubator to becoming a
>  > > full-fledged project
>  > > * what is allowed to remain in the current revision of branches (for
>  > > example branches which are not trunk and might not have been touched
>  > > for 2 years)
>  > > * how do people make a distinction between some types of non-Apache
>  > > licensed material and others (eg. LPGL demo and Adobe licensed
>  > > files). Something clearer than "semantics" will be needed since PMCs
>  > > will need to decide on a daily basis what is OK and what is not.
>  > > * what is the distinction between a maven pom which requires an LGPL
>  > > library to run a demo, and a Photoshop file which requires a closed
>  > > source application to open? That is, what are the rules for the PMC
>  > > to follow when deciding which is allowed and which is not.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Ari Maniatis
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > NB: I have a law degree, but my knowledge of USA law is sketchy, so
>  > > there will be others here with much better understanding of the
>  > > relevant legal issues. But I'm guessing we are talking about a moral
>  > > (?) standpoint on making a statement about what the Apache license
>  > > stands for and how it is perceived by the world, and legal issues
>  > > might not be relevant here.
>  > >
>  >
>  > Well, than you probably have more legal experience than most of us. My
>  > answers mostly come from having been on this list for years.
>  >
>  > As far as what is relevant and what is not, many of the answers are at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>  > . In my opinion you should avoid checking stuff into your public
>  > project repository that doesn't meet this.
>  >
>  > In my personal opinion (and that is all it is, not based on anything
>  > legal), I am not too concerned with things that are in svn history but
>  > aren't part of any tags and aren't included when I checkout from a
>  > branch - including trunk.
>  >
>
>
> My personal guess is that what is relevant here is to know if the legal
>  concept of "publishing" depends not just on the fact of making documents
>  available or there needs to be some sort of "intent" to publish

As regards intent, the links to SVN are usually made easy to find,
often no more difficult than finding download links. This suggests
that there is intent to publish.

>  So, there is probably a gradation between:
>  - something that gets sent to a list by mistake, and remains archived in
>  spite of later expression of error in submission
>  - something committed and later explicitly deleted from trunk and/or
>  tags, but remaining through history
>  - something available in trunk and tags, but that gets stripped from
>  "release tarballs" [1]
>  - something in the release tarballs

Seems to me that there is very little - if any - difference between
the last two cases, given that SVN links are freely published.

>  [1] Note that some scm tools or web frontends, notably git, but also
>  trac IIRC, allow to generate a tarball from arbitrary commits, thus
>  blurring the last two cases.
>
>  Regards
>
> Santiago
>
>
>  > Ralph
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 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


Mime
View raw message