Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Christopher Tubbs (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12990182.1468758481000.53167.1468758500427@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12990182.1468758481000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12990182.1468758481000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.12990182.1468758481693@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Created] (LEGAL-265) What are the valid URLs for
 LICENSE-2.0 at apache.org?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:28:22 -0000

Christopher Tubbs created LEGAL-265:
---------------------------------------

             Summary: 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... 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
(v6.3.4#6332)

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