On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <d...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 > Dirkjan, My +0 means that i don't want to block on that vote. I'm uncomfortable to release a documentation that isn't totally under the apache 2 license since I don't know what could be the impact on the distribution of it by others in their own projects. WHich is the point of using the apache 2 license. Now I guess it can be OK if we fix in next minor release. - benoit
