On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> Benoit, just to address your concerns, the way copyright works is that if >> you don't grant permissions, copyright is in effect in full force. So the >> lack of our documenting the licences, in the worst case, might mean that >> you do not have the permission to redistribute, and so on. (Certainly not >> that you have permission to do anything you like.) But of course, we've >> verified that from a legal perspective, these files are perfectly fine and >> we can distribute them in accordance with our third-party licensing policy. >> So the issue is theoretical only. If someone was to spot the file, and >> wonder what the license is, they could ask us, and we could point them to >> the mailing list posts, and say "it's fine, and sorry for the bug, we'll >> fix it in the next release." >> > The main problem here is that some contents are under different licenses > like the one for the replication protocol. This is what I'm worried about. > Legally these contents are under the license the author put them until it > is specifically mentioned differently in the notice. This is how copyright > work.
Can we reach consensus on this? I feel fine with both sides, so that doesn't help. Cheers, Dirkjan
