creadur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: Include Source URLs in Generated LICENSE...?
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:16:44 GMT
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 00:34, Chip Childers <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:49 PM, sebb <> wrote:
>>> On 31 October 2012 21:12, Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Whisker[1] generates LICENSE and NOTICE documents from meta-data. An
>>>> optional source URL can be associated with each resource contained in a
>>>> distribution. Originally, this supported licenses which require the source
>>>> to be printed in the NOTICE but Apache CloudStack[2] would like to include
>>>> source URL in the LICENSE. This would be unconventional but I'm not sure
>>>> would be harmful.
>>>> So, I'm leaning towards introducing a configuration allow this
>>>> Opinions? Objections?
>>> The content of URLs can change, so provided the current content is
>>> included in the LICENSE file I don't see any harm in also including
>>> the URL from which it was derived.
>> Actually, and please do correct me if I don't understand the whisker
>> meta-data correctly, we (the CloudStack project) are using the
>> "source" attribute to provide a URL from which the reader can access
>> the source code of a dependency or included software artifact.  Have I
>> misunderstood that attribute?
> Or maybe I have.

The documentation [1] is a little confusing, but as I read it (and the
CDDL clause that I believe is being mentioned), I think it's
specifically designed to provide a method of linking to the source
code.  This isn't important when we are distributing the source
itself, but does matter when we are trying to create the legal
documents that cover a binary distribution.

Given the interpretation above, the reasoning for having the source
link in the LICENSE file was specifically for scenarios where there
isn't a NOTICE requirement for a particular resource, but we are
required to provide a link to the source code.


>>> However, I don't think the LICENSE file should contain only the URL.
>>> Apart from the fact that the content might vary, the end-user should
>>> not have to go fetch another file - the LICENSE file should be
>>> complete.
>> Absolutely.  The actual license needs to be in the LICENSE file.
>>>> Robert
>>>> [1]
>>>> [2]

View raw message