www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig L Russell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-265) What are the valid URLs for LICENSE-2.0 at apache.org?
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:12:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-265?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15381469#comment-15381469

Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-265:

I believe that the first four deliver the identical content. 

The last two are a convenience for cases where html is awkward (for inclusion in a text file).

But they all contain the same words in a different format.

I would have no problem with allowing any of these to be allowed by RAT. 

> What are the valid URLs for LICENSE-2.0 at apache.org?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-265
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-265
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Christopher Tubbs
> This question is a bit weird, but I was requested to bring it up on RAT-212.
> Ultimately, the question is really about the canonical URL for references to the AL,
2.0 at apache.org.
> Here's some variants:
> # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
> # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
> # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> Which is the canonical location to reference?
> Which of these would LEGAL consider valid for automated tooling to verify a requirement
to reference the AL, 2.0 license at apache.org has been satisfied? All of them? A subset?
> The license header blurbs we use have only http, but would the license header requirement
still be satisfied fully if a project edited the text to reference the equivalent https URL?
> I wouldn't expect an https reference to substantively change the meaning of the reference
when they serve the same content (https just does so more "securely")... and I personally
prefer https wherever possible. It is possible a webserver would serve different content on
http vs. https, but apache.org doesn't (at least not for the license). I also wouldn't expect
the reference to be less valid if it points to the txt or html version, or whether it has
the optional html file extension. But, perhaps LEGAL has a stricter opinion?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message