On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> 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
