www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Burch <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Section 4.2, and patch build workflows
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:03:08 GMT
*ping*. Anyone out there know about section 4.2 and patch builds?

Cheers
Nick

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Nick Burch wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Largely with my work hat on, I've got a question about section 4.2 of the 
> Apache License v2. Specificially, what we need to do, when, how that fits 
> into the contribution workflow, and if there are any tools to help...
>
> Section 4 (Redistribution) clause 2 reads:
>  "You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
>   that You changed the files"
>
> Now, thinking about a few contribution workflows and how it applies in the 
> case of a bug fix or new small feature.
>
> 1 - I post the patch, get a lazy consensus OK, and commit it. I then do
>    a snapshot build including the patch for work
> 2 - I post the patch, get the OK, but it depends on another library that
>    isn't released yet. It will be committed as soon as the other project
>    releases the dependency though. In the mean time, I do a snapshot
>    build of the dependency, and a snapshot build of the project including
>    the patch.
> 3 - I post a patch to a project I'm not a committer on. While it's being
>    discussed, I do a snapshot build with the patch in it.
> 4 - I take a git clone of a project I'm not a committer on, and work up
>    my patch in that. I then publish my patch in a public git repo, as
>    well as sending in the patch to the project. While the project
>    discusses it, I do a snapshot build from my git repo.
>
> For all of these cases, let's say that as well as wanting to distribute the 
> patched binary in $DAY_JOB product, I also want to include both the patched 
> source (to aid debugging) and the patch itself (to make life easy for both 
> $WORK and downstream users)
>
> From reading clause 4.2, it looks like when building the source jar for my 
> patched build, I'd need to start adding various notice bits into the source + 
> then make sure I don't accidently commit that to Apache's svn at a later 
> date...
>
> Is that really the case? And does it apply for all 4 examples? And if so, 
> what tools (if any?) do other people use when building their patched source 
> jars (and I guess also patched c source trees for use with gdb etc) to ensure 
> it matches the license but avoids accidently committing that to svn? And do I 
> need to include the "I changed this" stuff in the patch, or only in the 
> source bundle?
>
> (If this is already answered somewhere, then I couldn't find it, but I'll be 
> happy if someone could point me at it!)
>
> Thanks
> Nick
>

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


Mime
View raw message