>On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Noah Slater 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 >
Good call. TL;DR: +0 http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I didn't weight in earlier as I've got nothing directly useful to add. 1. I'm happy with the release "as is" given that we have acknowledged the licence issue already on the ML & the holders of that copyright have granted their consent. 2. If those holders request we roll another release to correct this issue, then I'd respect that wish. 3. overall I am +0 on this issue, I'm relaxed and going with the flow. MfG/Cheers Dave Cottlehuber
