www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the top level of the source tree and what exactly is an Apache distribution?
Date Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:23:07 GMT
On 16 September 2013 10:50, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201309.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMwUvmaoOuBJ7dpVj9qAmwVnbfcxTid7UZgc6EdEL7%2BOpg%40mail.gmail.com%3EI
did some searching...
> The ASF Licensing How To includes this helpful simple snippet:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#source-tree-location
> # Location Within the Source Tree
> LICENSE and NOTICE belong at the [top level of the source tree][1]. They
>> may be named LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt, but the bare names are preferred.
>>   [1]:  http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> If we wander over to that link:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> # NOTICE file
> 0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top
>> directory, along with the standard LICENSE file.
>> 1. The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text,
>> suitably modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of distribution
>> of the current and past versions of the product:
>>       Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
>>       Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
>>       This product includes software developed at
>>       The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>> 2. The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
>> third-party notices.
>> 3. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from source
>> files submitted to the ASF.
>> 4. See also Modifications to NOTICE
> Now that is mostly OK.... but it does beg the following questions:
> 1. What exactly is "the top level of the source tree"? Is it the tree in
> SCM or is it the tree in the .zip or .tar.gz files that end up in the /dist
> directory. The text I have seen would seep to imply that the phrase refers
> to the top level of the source tree in an Apache distribution... which
> brings us to..
> 2. What exactly is "an Apache distribution"? To the best of my knowledge
> this is just the .zip or .tar.gz files that end up in the /dist directory.
> I know that other people have opinions that things like SCM also are Apache
> distributions, but it would seem to me that the two links I cited above
> would be *very clear* in stating that SCM is viewed as a distribution if it
> was the official view of the ASF (and perhaps it is... in which case please
> fix the website)
> By way of some concrete examples, and because real world examples are much
> much better than abstract hypotheticals.
> Consider the Apache Maven project. We are a top level project with many
> things that we release. We have Maven Core itself and we have many plugins
> and other shared components that have their own release lifecycles... we
> also have some components in our Subversion repository and others in GIT
> repositories.
> Case 1
> ----------
> For technical reasons, i.e. given the way GIT works, it is easiest to put
> any group of things that get released as an atomic unit into a single GIT
> repository. Thus we have Maven Core (with the 12 modules that are used to
> build Maven Core) at
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=tree Now as it
> happens the top level of that group of 12 modules is the root of that GIT
> repository and we have LICENSE and NOTICE files there. As part of our
> release process we produce a source distribution of that tree and hence the
> LICENSE and NOTICE files will be at the root of the
> apache-maven-x.y.x-src.tar.gz and apache-maven-x.y.x-src.zip files that end
> up in the /dist directory. So in this case it does not matter whether an
> Apache distribution is only the apache-maven-x.y.x-src.tar.gz files or also
> includes the https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git GIT
> repository. In this case we have the files at the root of both source trees.
> Case 2
> ----------
> Now let us consider a different set of atomically released modules.
> Surefire consists of again 12 modules that all get released at the same
> time. The source tree in SCM is
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=tree as
> again that is a separate source repository from our other stuff. Our most
> recent source release of Surefire is
> http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/surefire/surefire-2.16-source-release.zipand if we look
at that file
> $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/surefire-2.16-source-release.zip */LICENSE */NOTICE
> Archive:  /Users/stephenc/Downloads/surefire-2.16-source-release.zip
>   Length     Date   Time    Name
>  --------    ----   ----    ----
>       108  08-11-13 16:57
> surefire-2.16/surefire-api/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE
>     11358  08-11-13 16:57   surefire-2.16/LICENSE
>       178  08-11-13 16:57   surefire-2.16/NOTICE
>  --------                   -------
>     11644                   3 files
> So in that Apache distribution we have the LICENSE and NOTICE files. But
> *if* SCM is also an Apache distribution, then there is an issue as the
> corresponding tag
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=tree;hb=6ba4e42610237302a83e5246a61a974aa5a6d60ddoes
not have the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
> So there is a potential issue with Surefire *if* SCM is considered an
> Apache distribution... but since this is a set of things in GIT the
> resolution of the *potential* issue is trivial, we can just add the two
> files and be done.
> The first two were intentionally picked to show the easy cases.
> Case 3
> ----------
> The Maven Release plugin consists of two modules that get released at the
> same time. Source control is in Subversion:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/
> The current source bundle is
> http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/release/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip,
> if we take a look at that file
> $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip */LICENSE
> Archive:  /Users/stephenc/Downloads/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip
>   Length     Date   Time    Name
>  --------    ----   ----    ----
>     11358  03-22-13 19:58   maven-release-2.4.1/LICENSE
>       170  03-22-13 19:58   maven-release-2.4.1/NOTICE
>  --------                   -------
>     11528                   2 files
> So again in that Apache distribution we have the LICENSE and NOTICE
> files... the tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/tags/maven-release-2.4.1/does not. Again
*if* SCM is an Apache distribution then the solution is
> trivial, we'd just add
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/LICENSE and
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/NOTICE and
> presto-chango we are done.
> Case 4
> ----------
> We have a lot of plugins and shared components that have their own release
> cadence, for example there are currently 42 things that we release in our
> "plugins" category. The source tree is hosted in Subversion because we
> don't want to have 42 GIT repositories, one for each plugin. Here is the
> root of the "plugins" category:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/ the attentive among
> you will notice the files
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/NOTICE.txt and
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/LICENSE.txt
> One plugin that we release is the Remote Resources plugin (picked because
> it has had a recent release)
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/maven-remote-resources-plugin/with
the most recent release being
> http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip
> $ unzip -l
> ~/Downloads/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip */LICENSE
> Archive:
>  /Users/stephenc/Downloads/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip
>   Length     Date   Time    Name
>  --------    ----   ----    ----
>     11358  08-14-13 08:25   maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/LICENSE
>       193  08-14-13 08:25   maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/NOTICE
>  --------                   -------
>     11551                   2 files
> And the corresponding tag is
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/(notice
that there is no NOTICE or LICENSE file in the
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/ directory)
> It would be a pain, and seem incredibly stupid to me that we would have to
> add LICENSE and NOTICE files to the 100+ independent release roots that we
> have between our plugins, site skins, shared components, etc... plus the
> top of our tree could technically be considered
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/ or better yet
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ could we call ourselves done with some
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/NOTICE and
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/LICENSE file in place?
> My view
> ------------
> My understanding is that an Apache distribution has to be voted on by the
> PMC, otherwise it is not an Apache distribution. If anything in source
> control is an Apache distribution then running a CTR SCM policy for an
> Apache TLP would be impossible and RTC would require 3x+1 binding votes for
> every commit rendering the "convenience" of a commit bit on a TLP anything
> but.
> So then I make the argument that only one of the following two postulates
> are true:
> * There is no requirement for the PMC to vote on Apache distributions and
> we can just let committers throw out releases without having PMC vote
> threads.

This statement is assuming that Source control is viewed an Apache
We don't vote on commits to Source control (other than the PMC's veto
right, but still the commits are not subject to a 72hr window before
becoming official and the hash/revision is always there anyway).
Thus if source control is "an Apache distribution" I argue that at least
some Apache distributions do not need to be voted on (given more than 1.5
million revisions in Subversion, one could argue the vast majority of such
distributions are not voted on) thus the "Apache distribution"s that end up
in /dist don't need to be voted on by the PMC...

> * Source control is not an Apache distribution and hence we do not need to
> have LICENSE and NOTICE files in source control, it can be a nice
> convenience, but there is no *requirement*.

The counter argument is that "an Apache distribution" has to have had a
successful vote of 3 binding +1 votes (or whatever the respective PMC
decides) certainly http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html seems to suggest
that a release is not a release until it has been voted on by the PMC and
copied to the distribution directory. Source control is "just a

> Can the foundation please resolve which of the above two statements is
> actually true (or maybe someone could check in a
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/LICENSE and a
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/NOTICE so that all TLPs using Subversion
> would be absolved of having to worry about what they have in their source
> trees)
There is, to me, a very clear disconnect. I have tried to frame it in terms
of two potential strawman arguments. The whole thing is less than obvious
to me, and as a PMC Chair who is legally responsible for the releases of
the TLP that I am char of, I am uncomfortable with the lack of clarity.

Related issues that I can find:


View raw message