On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > On 14 October 2013 11:42, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> which one ? All of included code which have a specific license are >> specified in the NOTICE file. If not this is wrong. >> > > I don't understand what you mean when you say you're uncomfortable. > Perhaps you mean that you don't feel that the two bits we're including (one > from you, and one from Chistopher Lenz) are "totally" under the Apache > License 2.0. > > I would counter that they are. You've already explicitly told us that it > is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. That was the purpose of the email > thread that I started last week. > > That's not totally true. >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Scope >> >> We *mus*t document third-party license. This also a way to make sure we >> don't use any code that could prohibit any commercial use. Which is the >> case if some part of the doc is under an unclear license. >> > > The text of the doc you linked is: > > "While the core Apache developed code will be under one of the Apache > licenses, other third party works may have been included and their license > text may have been added to the Apache projects' LICENSE or NOTICE files. > Alternatively, they may be available separately." > > But we've already done this. The two bits we're talking about have been > licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which we already include in the > distribution. It is the first license we list at the top of our LICENSE > file. So we have documented the license. > > The only thing we're missing is an entry in our NOTICE file that > attributes the copyright to you, and another bit that attributes the > copyright to Christopher Lenz. That's it. > > I think that's an issue, but I don't think it's a release blocking issue. > Christopher's work is already attributed to him in the .rst doc. So that's > not a problem. We actually need to move that to the NOTICE file for the > next release. > > So the only real issue here that we have included your work without > attributing your copyright. So the question is: are you happy for us to > ship a release without the copyright notice for your work? This is entirely > up to you. > > There is no legal requirement for us to do so unless you force us to. > > Thanks, > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater > > I am pretty clear on what I am uncomfortable. ie either that some docs are not licensed correctly or the information in the notice file is missing. This shadow zone is a problem when we are speaking about relicensing in a business product. I would be more comfortable if we are strict about that. - benoit
