www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE for EXE and DMG files
Date Fri, 12 Jun 2015 23:24:25 GMT
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/12/15, 1:29 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> Nobody cares about the details. Just follow the intent and we are fine.
>> It is usually sufficient to provide the file separately if each separable
>> part contains summary+links back to the long form, but that is only done
>> when there is a definite reason why the LICENSE and NOTICE cannot be
>> embedded
>> inside the distributed artifact.
> 
> OK, thanks.  One more question while I have folks’ attention:
> 
> This is not the first release of this product.  What is the Apache policy
> on IP issues found in already-shipped releases?  Do projects have to go
> back and fix them?  Remove the artifacts from dist and archive?  Or just
> fix it in the next release?  I’m not talking about any really big issue
> like bundling GPL or proprietary code, but for releases where we realize
> now that we didn’t follow the L & N How-to correctly.

They are convenience binaries, not releases.  We should not have any old ones
laying around apache.org, unless they are needed for testing.  If so, you can
stick them in a subdirectory with the appropriate notices beside them.
It would only be a major concern if one of the copyright owners complain,
in which case we would probably delete them.

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


Mime
View raw message