www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-26) LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
Date Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:34:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12732831#action_12732831
] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-26:
------------------------------------

Full agreement from me on your comment Roy, but I've felt many were disagreeing. I'll post
to the list to state this is consensus and challenge for disagreement.

Was the FTR targeted at a particular comment/statement?

> 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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message