creadur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Include Source URLs in Generated LICENSE...?
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:02:21 GMT
On 1 November 2012 13:16, Chip Childers <> wrote:
> 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
>>>>> 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.

OK, in that case I have no objections.

> [1]
>>>> 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