You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> on 2012/10/01 21:33:26 UTC
difference between 'publishing' to SVN and in a release
It has been suggested that a recent topic that appeared on
general@incubator be added to the www.apache.org/legal/resolved page.
My suggestion would be to add the following:
Q. What code can be added to Apache's public SVN or GIT (and how does
this differ from what can be included in releases)?
A. Projects are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* perspective (i.e. it
is not and should not be public, or we don't have rights to
distribute). While we may not consider putting stuff into SVN as
publishing or distributing, others might not agree with that. Best is
to make sure it is only license compatibility issues that exist before
code is checked in.
Thoughts?
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: difference between 'publishing' to SVN and in a release
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Sure, it applies to both! Although some recommend not putting binaries
in SVN, which is a valid point!
If folks generally agree with the value of this Q/A, I'll amend it to
clarify the above.
Upayavira
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 08:49 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 1 October 2012 20:33, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > It has been suggested that a recent topic that appeared on
> > general@incubator be added to the www.apache.org/legal/resolved page.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to add the following:
> >
> > Q. What code can be added to Apache's public SVN or GIT (and how does
> > this differ from what can be included in releases)?
> >
> > A. Projects are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
> > perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
> > check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* perspective (i.e. it
> > is not and should not be public, or we don't have rights to
> > distribute). While we may not consider putting stuff into SVN as
> > publishing or distributing, others might not agree with that. Best is
> > to make sure it is only license compatibility issues that exist before
> > code is checked in.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> The paragraph should make clear if it refers to source code or binary or
> both.
>
> > Upayavira
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: difference between 'publishing' to SVN and in a release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 October 2012 20:33, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been suggested that a recent topic that appeared on
> general@incubator be added to the www.apache.org/legal/resolved page.
>
> My suggestion would be to add the following:
>
> Q. What code can be added to Apache's public SVN or GIT (and how does
> this differ from what can be included in releases)?
>
> A. Projects are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
> perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
> check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* perspective (i.e. it
> is not and should not be public, or we don't have rights to
> distribute). While we may not consider putting stuff into SVN as
> publishing or distributing, others might not agree with that. Best is
> to make sure it is only license compatibility issues that exist before
> code is checked in.
>
> Thoughts?
The paragraph should make clear if it refers to source code or binary or both.
> Upayavira
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: difference between 'publishing' to SVN and in a release
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> This FAQ is missing one crucial piece of information: what do we do if
> something of a questionable legal perspective IS committed to a repository?
> Either as part of an initial code import, or accidentally during any other
> period?
This was discussed in 2009 (: and probably many other times :).
http://markmail.org/message/lzqm5w4uft5uqf4m
Removal from svn is not the only solution. This has already happened on
numerous occasions. When the error was spotted/reported it was fixed.
No-one has ever complained that fixing trunk isn't sufficient. Let's not
create problems for ourselves that experience has shown are non-issues.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: difference between 'publishing' to SVN and in a release
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
This FAQ is missing one crucial piece of information: what do we do if
something of a questionable legal perspective IS committed to a repository?
Either as part of an initial code import, or accidentally during any other
period?
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been suggested that a recent topic that appeared on
> general@incubator be added to the www.apache.org/legal/resolved page.
>
> My suggestion would be to add the following:
>
> Q. What code can be added to Apache's public SVN or GIT (and how does
> this differ from what can be included in releases)?
>
> A. Projects are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
> perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
> check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* perspective (i.e. it
> is not and should not be public, or we don't have rights to
> distribute). While we may not consider putting stuff into SVN as
> publishing or distributing, others might not agree with that. Best is
> to make sure it is only license compatibility issues that exist before
> code is checked in.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Upayavira
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS