www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Podling releases and ASF policy
Date Sun, 23 Jun 2019 23:20:35 GMT
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:29 PM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> In general that's exactly the same as the IPMC currently votes with the exception of
the following:
> - inclusion of compiled code
> - category X dependancy
> - inclusion of category X source code
>
> Which are currently treated as blockers by the IPMC.
>
> I see a contradiction here:
>
> > Blocker: Must be fixed and then revote:
> >>
> >> - 3rd party Category X or Category B bundled code licenses not listed in LICENSE
>
>
> With:
>
> > Issue: Release then file a JIRA to fix before next release
> >>
> >> - Included compiled code (which is Category B/X) [3]
>
> As I can’t see anyone listing a Category X license in LICENSE.

Why exactly would this be a legal blocker? You make the life of your
downstream consumers really difficult, but you're not committing an
offence here.

In addition to that, you'll have it in DISCLAIMER so everyone will be happy.

> Including Category X code is a common reasons releases get -1 votes, putting a category
X license in LICENSE has only happened a couple of times, so it’s unlikely someone would
include GPL code and put the GPL license in LICENSE, it more common that they include GPL
code and don’t mention it in LICENSE or realise that it cannot be included.

Correct. So having it in LICENSE and DISCLAIMER then becomes a blocker.

> >> Except for some people, who think that most things should be allowed, there
seems to be general agreement in the IPMC on this list, except for allowing compiled code
or having a category X dependency in a podling release.
> > clr: this statement is a bit ambiguous
>
> The only things that in general IPMC people don’t seem to agree on is having a category
X dependancy or allowing compiled code in a release which this currently thread is suggesting
to allow. (If we put aside the the everything is allowed position.)
>
> >> Votes on releases on the IPMC general list also confirm this. Some people have
expressed the view that as long as it is legal it is allowed, but it unclear if that means
full compliance with 3rd party licenses or not. In a few cases, things from this list have
been allowed with permission from V.P legal / V.P incubator.
> > clr: I think we all agree that getting special permission should be a last resort
because by definition it delays a release
>
> Yep that’s currently the case. The cases when it been asked for has been having a category
X dependancy or inclusion. I’m not sure what other situations would require it if theses
things are allowed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message