[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-26) LICENSE and NOTICE in svn

["Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12732396#action_12732396 ] 

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-26:
------------------------------------

No consensus showing here. 

Legal PMC hat on... I'm going to propose text of:

"Not having a LICENSE/NOTICE in SVN is not against policy. It does however confuse things for contributors and users who rely on the SVN tree, so it is strongly recommended that SVN locations contributors are expected to check out contain the LICENSE and NOTICE files, or how to generate the current LICENSE and NOTICE files. "

> LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-26
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> www.apache.org documentation/policy make it clear that we have to include a NOTICE/LICENSE in released package, but a question raise from time to time in mailing lists and big discussions about the need for a NOTICE/LICENSE in some svn folder.
> I personally don't like to have to do that and I don't share the legal references made to justify the existence of this policy, but I agree that most people in the legal-discuss thread back from january agreed on something along these line:
> -------
> expected svn checkout points are supposed to include LICENSE and NOTICE files at their root covering everything in the checkout, and nothing else.  These should be kept up to date via "best-effort" by the pmc and committers, and should definitely be accurate for svn tags.
> -------
> The problem with this sentence is "expected checkout" related to the "checkout points" that is not so defined. Expecially with multimodule maven project: many times people simply checkout a single module and not the whole project.
> Furthermore the "definitely be accurate for svn tags" is a problem: tags and branches in svn are simple copies. If that sentence is needed I would suggest to replace it with "for releases tags".
> Anyway my personal opinion/preference on this "policy" is worthless (I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an ASF member, I'm a simple PMC committer), I just open this issue because I would really like to see this policy, a similar policy or something telling there is not such a policy about NOTICE and LICENSE in svn trees added to this page:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> references:
> http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
> http://markmail.org/message/lbhyjzh5ynizhdx3

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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