also not my +0. i am not saying a blocking issue. However i do think that this issue is important . We should be really strict about that preserving the spirit of our license.
- benoit On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > 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 >
