On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> Coming in late. >> >> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/ >> release. > > Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a > LICENSE file at the top, I would think that this counts as a legal > 'publication' under the terms of the license. > > if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our > repositories?
I agree with Jim that "a snapshot is not a release". I also agree with him that licenses "kick in" at distribution. As to whether they kick in at "distribution/release", I think that's a weird bit of wording, and I would be surprised if we are not all in agreement here. There were long threads on this topic back in 2007-2009 on legal-discuss@apache. http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az http://s.apache.org/6Wm http://markmail.org/message/xietapwmthvvknex http://s.apache.org/H6o Here's are a couple germane points from Roy: http://markmail.org/message/vbfjep4r2npkwufa http://s.apache.org/aXK Copyright law has no concept of software development. So, when a lawyer looks at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/ what the lawyer (or even layperson) sees is a website. http://markmail.org/message/44ezdre3se3ov5nu http://s.apache.org/MEC > 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). Marvin Humphrey