You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2009/07/18 05:41:32 UTC
NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
[cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 ]
Roy states:
"Consensus on the list (and board policy since before 1999) is that
all distribution points have proper licensing, and the only way that
can happen is if the LICENSE and NOTICE files do appear in an obvious
location within subversion source code trees. Normally that is at the
top of the tree. The contents are for that source and should be the
same as for our source releases. "
I'm fully in favour of this statement, but am not convinced there is
consensus. If anyone does not agree with this, please speak your
piece. If sufficient consensus is shown, then we'll get a rewrite of
Roy's statement above added to resolved.html.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> [cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 ]
>
> Roy states:
>
> "Consensus on the list (and board policy since before 1999) is that
> all distribution points have proper licensing, and the only way that
> can happen is if the LICENSE and NOTICE files do appear in an obvious
> location within subversion source code trees. Normally that is at the
> top of the tree. The contents are for that source and should be the
> same as for our source releases. "
>
> I'm fully in favour of this statement, but am not convinced there is
> consensus. If anyone does not agree with this, please speak your
> piece. If sufficient consensus is shown, then we'll get a rewrite of
> Roy's statement above added to resolved.html.
I'm in favor of this statement being added to the documentation.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Niclas Hedhman<ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Henri Yandell<ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> [cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 ]
>>
>> Roy states:
>>
>> "Consensus on the list (and board policy since before 1999) is that
>> all distribution points have proper licensing, and the only way that
>> can happen is if the LICENSE and NOTICE files do appear in an obvious
>> location within subversion source code trees. Normally that is at the
>> top of the tree. The contents are for that source and should be the
>> same as for our source releases. "
>
> I might not be the most observant person in the world, but this is the
> first time I heard "distribution point" as an Apache term.
>
>
> In effect, if this is true (SVN is a distribution point), then
> Incubator is breaking the legal requirement frequently as Incubator
> does not require the imported codebase to be 'legally correct' et
> cetera. IMHO, considering SVN a "distribution" makes things really
> messy (although I understand the rationale that SVN is a place where
> people can download code, hence distributing to others).
>
> 1. Why would only the 'HEAD' be considered the 'distribution point'?
> Or if even more constrained; Why only tags/?
>
Further, what about subfolders and subprojects? Does that mean every
potentially compilable subfolder must have it's own copy (since
someone may check out only a portion?). That seems a bit much.
> 2. Our 'distributions' are legally clean, but if the entire SVN tree
> (incl history) is a 'distribution', then this is either not true
> anymore, or we need to rip out old stuff (not feasible).
>
> 3. If HEAD is never to be knowingly 'tainted', then the Incubation
> process will become more complicated, as it has been said that *we*
> will help clean up the incoming project and not require a squeeky
> clean artifact arriving in the 'inbox'.
>
> Although it is easy to make (and like) categorical statements like
> above, it is not always clear what the consequences are.
>
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
El mié, 22-07-2009 a las 09:09 -0700, Henri Yandell escribió:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> > Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
> >>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
> >>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
> >>> they are not "distribution points").
> >>
> >> And that is plain silly, since a majority of contributors are becoming
> >> committers via patches to trunk development. If that doesn't happen in
> >> the open, then we definitely loose a lot of influx of people.
> >>
> >> What I think we are seeing is the legal requirements unable to keep up
> >> with how software is being developed in the open.
> >
> > If a legal requirement exists then I think there is not much we can do.
> > We cannot ensure that every commit will keep NOTICE and LICENSE in each
> > folder updated and current. It is much better to private them and to
> > release once in a week. At least we'll have to check NOTICE/LICENSE once
> > in a week and not at every commit.
> >
> > On the other side, if this is only an unwritten policy then this is a
> > proof that we should change it to "unspoken policy", too ;-)
> >
> > But the whole discussion is a waste of time until we know what are the
> > unbreakable legal requirements.
>
> Was tempted to answer in the spirit of Roy, but I can't parody him :)
>
> We can't ensure that the latest version of *.java is fine - we find a
> problem and fix it. The exact same applies to the NOTICE and LICENSE.
> If commit A adds a library and commit B adds licensing text for that
> library - it's not chicken little sky is falling time.
>
> If we worry about making risk equal zero; we stop breathing and become
> vegetables on machines.
>
If we stop breathing we become plant substrate very quickly,
actually. :)
IIRC from substantial flames^Wdiscussions, svn was not considered a
"release", being the cotes and implied QA what brought the character of
release to the code.
So I think "distribution point" is not the best possible word there. Do
we have any alternate rewording of the contentious term?
Regards
Santiago
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>>
>>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
>>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
>>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
>>> they are not "distribution points").
>>
>> And that is plain silly, since a majority of contributors are becoming
>> committers via patches to trunk development. If that doesn't happen in
>> the open, then we definitely loose a lot of influx of people.
>>
>> What I think we are seeing is the legal requirements unable to keep up
>> with how software is being developed in the open.
>
> If a legal requirement exists then I think there is not much we can do.
> We cannot ensure that every commit will keep NOTICE and LICENSE in each
> folder updated and current. It is much better to private them and to
> release once in a week. At least we'll have to check NOTICE/LICENSE once
> in a week and not at every commit.
>
> On the other side, if this is only an unwritten policy then this is a
> proof that we should change it to "unspoken policy", too ;-)
>
> But the whole discussion is a waste of time until we know what are the
> unbreakable legal requirements.
Was tempted to answer in the spirit of Roy, but I can't parody him :)
We can't ensure that the latest version of *.java is fine - we find a
problem and fix it. The exact same applies to the NOTICE and LICENSE.
If commit A adds a library and commit B adds licensing text for that
library - it's not chicken little sky is falling time.
If we worry about making risk equal zero; we stop breathing and become
vegetables on machines.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>
>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
>> they are not "distribution points").
>
> And that is plain silly, since a majority of contributors are becoming
> committers via patches to trunk development. If that doesn't happen in
> the open, then we definitely loose a lot of influx of people.
>
> What I think we are seeing is the legal requirements unable to keep up
> with how software is being developed in the open.
If a legal requirement exists then I think there is not much we can do.
We cannot ensure that every commit will keep NOTICE and LICENSE in each
folder updated and corrent. It is much better to private them and to
release once in a week. At least we'll have to check NOTICE/LICENSE once
in a week and not at every commit.
On the other side, if this is only an unwritten policy then this is a
proof that we should change it to "unspoken policy", too ;-)
But the whole discussion is a waste of time until we know what are the
unbreakable legal requirements.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara<ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
> they are not "distribution points").
And that is plain silly, since a majority of contributors are becoming
committers via patches to trunk development. If that doesn't happen in
the open, then we definitely loose a lot of influx of people.
What I think we are seeing is the legal requirements unable to keep up
with how software is being developed in the open.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Additionally,
There has been a dispute of what is the project root. SVN is directory based
and technically speaking all of ASF shares a common root (GIT would not
share this problem) and many projects have sub-projects, and I think some
have more levels than that. And theoretically speaking if someone points
someone else to, for instance, a directory of code, then that directory
becomes a distribution point... yikes!
For Maven generated distros, I think the generated files should simply be
checked in.
-- Niclas
On Jul 28, 2009 5:39 AM, "Craig L Russell" <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
Top post to summarize:
No one disputes the requirement to include NOTICE/LICENSE in distributions
that are voted on by the PMC and released to the wild for posting on mirror
sites.
Some dispute the requirement to maintain NOTICE/LICENSE in svn, with two
obvious sticking points:
1. Some projects dynamically build NOTICE/LICENSE files when they package
their wares using Maven.
2. Incubating projects are often imported with the original licenses intact,
but with no top level NOTICE/LICENSE files, the idea being that the
incubator is the place where the legal requirements are being met, not where
the legal requirements have already been met.
For case 1, I have no opinion. Let the cage'o'death resolve this one.
For case 2, we can solve this issue by adding guidance that when an external
code base is imported into the incubator, the original license is added to
the top level along with the proper notice. During the process of evolving
the code base to conform with Apache policy, the license and notice files
can be updated to track the code in the repository. Only after all of the
offending code has been removed (or relicensed) can the podling think about
making a release.
I agree with Roy that this discussion should result in policy posted to the
Apache web site, and not rely on institutional memory.
Craig
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jul 22, 2009, at
5:36 PM, William A. Ro...
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:C...
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Top post to summarize:
No one disputes the requirement to include NOTICE/LICENSE in
distributions that are voted on by the PMC and released to the wild
for posting on mirror sites.
Some dispute the requirement to maintain NOTICE/LICENSE in svn, with
two obvious sticking points:
1. Some projects dynamically build NOTICE/LICENSE files when they
package their wares using Maven.
2. Incubating projects are often imported with the original licenses
intact, but with no top level NOTICE/LICENSE files, the idea being
that the incubator is the place where the legal requirements are being
met, not where the legal requirements have already been met.
For case 1, I have no opinion. Let the cage'o'death resolve this one.
For case 2, we can solve this issue by adding guidance that when an
external code base is imported into the incubator, the original
license is added to the top level along with the proper notice. During
the process of evolving the code base to conform with Apache policy,
the license and notice files can be updated to track the code in the
repository. Only after all of the offending code has been removed (or
relicensed) can the podling think about making a release.
I agree with Roy that this discussion should result in policy posted
to the Apache web site, and not rely on institutional memory.
Craig
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>
>>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work
>>> towards a
>>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public
>>> while
>>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a
>>> way so
>>> they are not "distribution points").
>>
>> SVN is not a distribution point.
>
> Of course it is a distribution point. Distribution == copy to someone
> else. It isn't a release (an editorial decision by the ASF).
>
>> So don't sweat if LICENSE/NOTICE fall out of whack. SVN by default
>> is AL
>> licensed. If the contents of a directory contain non-AL sources,
>> and that
>> license is not evident from checking out a particular svn directory
>> tree,
>> then FIX IT.
>
> SVN is not licensed anything, by default. The contents are licensed
> by the copyright owners. The copyright owners give the ASF the right
> to distribute under certain terms. We must obey those terms in SVN.
> The recipients of subversion must be told what those terms are so
> that they too can obey them. They should be told what are license is
> for the content retrieved via subversion.
>
> That does not mean we have to be perfect every second of every day.
> It means that we have to strive for correctness -- we must fix
> problems when they are found, and we must not intentionally
> create problems with licensing. In any case, most of the copyright
> owners who license us code are a pretty forgiving bunch (ourselves).
>
> What I wish is that this discussion would not need to be repeated
> every six months. This is "open source fundamentals" -- heck, it's
> authoring fundamentals, and I fail to grasp why folks are so
> unwilling to put the most trivial efforts into maintaining a correct
> text file of REQUIRED attributions, and yet expect others to obey
> our own software license when they receive it.
>
> ....Roy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> SVN is not licensed anything, by default. The contents are licensed
> by the copyright owners. The copyright owners give the ASF the right
> to distribute under certain terms. We must obey those terms in SVN.
> The recipients of subversion must be told what those terms are so
> that they too can obey them. They should be told what are license is
> for the content retrieved via subversion.
>
> That does not mean we have to be perfect every second of every day.
> It means that we have to strive for correctness -- we must fix
> problems when they are found, and we must not intentionally
> create problems with licensing. In any case, most of the copyright
> owners who license us code are a pretty forgiving bunch (ourselves).
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>
>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work
>> towards a
>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a
>> way so
>> they are not "distribution points").
>
> SVN is not a distribution point.
Of course it is a distribution point. Distribution == copy to someone
else. It isn't a release (an editorial decision by the ASF).
> So don't sweat if LICENSE/NOTICE fall out of whack. SVN by default
> is AL
> licensed. If the contents of a directory contain non-AL sources,
> and that
> license is not evident from checking out a particular svn directory
> tree,
> then FIX IT.
SVN is not licensed anything, by default. The contents are licensed
by the copyright owners. The copyright owners give the ASF the right
to distribute under certain terms. We must obey those terms in SVN.
The recipients of subversion must be told what those terms are so
that they too can obey them. They should be told what are license is
for the content retrieved via subversion.
That does not mean we have to be perfect every second of every day.
It means that we have to strive for correctness -- we must fix
problems when they are found, and we must not intentionally
create problems with licensing. In any case, most of the copyright
owners who license us code are a pretty forgiving bunch (ourselves).
What I wish is that this discussion would not need to be repeated
every six months. This is "open source fundamentals" -- heck, it's
authoring fundamentals, and I fail to grasp why folks are so
unwilling to put the most trivial efforts into maintaining a correct
text file of REQUIRED attributions, and yet expect others to obey
our own software license when they receive it.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM, William A. Rowe,
Jr.<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> I would find it immensely edifying to put Bill and Roy into a cage of
>> death. It appears that they have diametrically opposed viewpoints on this.
>
> Oakland is only 3 1/2 months away :)
>
> I don't believe Roy has *EVER* suggested svn is a distribution point,
uhhh... Henri starting this thread with exactly such a quote.
Or are you possible to run a different semantics parser on that
statement saying something else?
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> I would find it immensely edifying to put Bill and Roy into a cage of
> death. It appears that they have diametrically opposed viewpoints on this.
Oakland is only 3 1/2 months away :)
I don't believe Roy has *EVER* suggested svn is a distribution point, but
it's the responsibility of the PRC to correctly acknowledge the providence
of everything that exists in their svn. How do you believe our views differ
:-?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>
>> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work
>> towards a
>> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
>> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a
>> way so
>> they are not "distribution points").
>
> SVN is not a distribution point.
>
> Correction: SVN is not a distribution point if the PMC's properly
> advertise
> SVN as the trunk of *development* and invite the *developers* of the
> world
> to hop aboard. Unfortunately, some projects have advertised SVN as
> the
> solution to bugs, etc, to the general public. That isn't the answer.
> Release early and release often is that answer.
>
> SVN exists for development. We invite the entire world to be
> developers.
> But we disclaim responsibility for the contents of SVN until a group
> of
> seasoned developers, the PMC, approves the contents of SVN as a
> release.
> That becomes a tarball/build artifacts/etc, and that is what is
> published
> to our *consumers*.
>
> So don't sweat if LICENSE/NOTICE fall out of whack. SVN by default
> is AL
> licensed. If the contents of a directory contain non-AL sources,
> and that
> license is not evident from checking out a particular svn directory
> tree,
> then FIX IT.
>
I would find it immensely edifying to put Bill and Roy into a cage of
death. It appears that they have diametrically opposed viewpoints on
this.
Craig
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
> private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
> all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
> they are not "distribution points").
SVN is not a distribution point.
Correction: SVN is not a distribution point if the PMC's properly advertise
SVN as the trunk of *development* and invite the *developers* of the world
to hop aboard. Unfortunately, some projects have advertised SVN as the
solution to bugs, etc, to the general public. That isn't the answer.
Release early and release often is that answer.
SVN exists for development. We invite the entire world to be developers.
But we disclaim responsibility for the contents of SVN until a group of
seasoned developers, the PMC, approves the contents of SVN as a release.
That becomes a tarball/build artifacts/etc, and that is what is published
to our *consumers*.
So don't sweat if LICENSE/NOTICE fall out of whack. SVN by default is AL
licensed. If the contents of a directory contain non-AL sources, and that
license is not evident from checking out a particular svn directory tree,
then FIX IT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
I'd like to add my old comment to this thread
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26?focusedCommentId=12619574&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12619574
---------
In my opinion the PMCs cannot ensure that the LICENSE/NOTICE that are in
svn are correct and updated all the time, otherwise we won't need a
release procedure and we won't vote on releases but on every commit. I
would prefer to have a private svn server instead of having to worry
about keep updating every LICENSE/NOTICE file we have in every folder of
the asf repository (related: what is a folder wrt distributions?).
---------
if "SVN is a distribution point" then I think we should work towards a
private+public svn repository where we have release tags public while
all of the trunk/branches are private (or anyways accessible in a way so
they are not "distribution points").
If there is a *legal* requirement then I guess it should be for each
folder as there are no "special" folders in the law and I guess there is
no reference to tags, history, branches, revisions or any other RCS
terminology. I don't think that I would accept to keep a NOTICE+LICENSE
correctly updated at each commit in each folder and to vet each commit
made by other to make sure they are always updated. I already do this
for releases and we have a 3 +1 vote for a cause. So if being open means
so much PITA I'd prefer to resign from PMC and simply work in private
branches.
If, instead, this is not a legal issue but a policy issue: I already
shown dozen (or maybe hundreds) of release artifacts with wrong
LICENSE/NOTICE contents, please let's push simple policies that people
will follow and let's ensure they all understand the simple policies
before going with unfeasible ones.
Stefano
Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Henri Yandell<ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> [cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 ]
>>
>> Roy states:
>>
>> "Consensus on the list (and board policy since before 1999) is that
>> all distribution points have proper licensing, and the only way that
>> can happen is if the LICENSE and NOTICE files do appear in an obvious
>> location within subversion source code trees. Normally that is at the
>> top of the tree. The contents are for that source and should be the
>> same as for our source releases. "
>
> I might not be the most observant person in the world, but this is the
> first time I heard "distribution point" as an Apache term.
>
>
> In effect, if this is true (SVN is a distribution point), then
> Incubator is breaking the legal requirement frequently as Incubator
> does not require the imported codebase to be 'legally correct' et
> cetera. IMHO, considering SVN a "distribution" makes things really
> messy (although I understand the rationale that SVN is a place where
> people can download code, hence distributing to others).
>
> 1. Why would only the 'HEAD' be considered the 'distribution point'?
> Or if even more constrained; Why only tags/?
>
> 2. Our 'distributions' are legally clean, but if the entire SVN tree
> (incl history) is a 'distribution', then this is either not true
> anymore, or we need to rip out old stuff (not feasible).
>
> 3. If HEAD is never to be knowingly 'tainted', then the Incubation
> process will become more complicated, as it has been said that *we*
> will help clean up the incoming project and not require a squeeky
> clean artifact arriving in the 'inbox'.
>
> Although it is easy to make (and like) categorical statements like
> above, it is not always clear what the consequences are.
>
>
>
> Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: NOTICE/LICENSE in svn
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Henri Yandell<ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> [cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26 ]
>
> Roy states:
>
> "Consensus on the list (and board policy since before 1999) is that
> all distribution points have proper licensing, and the only way that
> can happen is if the LICENSE and NOTICE files do appear in an obvious
> location within subversion source code trees. Normally that is at the
> top of the tree. The contents are for that source and should be the
> same as for our source releases. "
I might not be the most observant person in the world, but this is the
first time I heard "distribution point" as an Apache term.
In effect, if this is true (SVN is a distribution point), then
Incubator is breaking the legal requirement frequently as Incubator
does not require the imported codebase to be 'legally correct' et
cetera. IMHO, considering SVN a "distribution" makes things really
messy (although I understand the rationale that SVN is a place where
people can download code, hence distributing to others).
1. Why would only the 'HEAD' be considered the 'distribution point'?
Or if even more constrained; Why only tags/?
2. Our 'distributions' are legally clean, but if the entire SVN tree
(incl history) is a 'distribution', then this is either not true
anymore, or we need to rip out old stuff (not feasible).
3. If HEAD is never to be knowingly 'tainted', then the Incubation
process will become more complicated, as it has been said that *we*
will help clean up the incoming project and not require a squeeky
clean artifact arriving in the 'inbox'.
Although it is easy to make (and like) categorical statements like
above, it is not always clear what the consequences are.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org