On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
> Benoit, you are the rights holder. So whether you are happy with this or > not is of primary importance. If you said you were happy the lack of > attribution for this release, I think that would help clear things up. > > you don't understand. This is not bout me or my rights. I only care about our users and the way they can distribute our code without worrying of the license or such. Making sure that the promise is also on the paper. - benoit > > On 14 October 2013 12:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Benoit, to clear it up: >>> >>> * Everything is licensed correctly. We have confirmation of this on the >>> mailing list. >>> >>> * We do not need to alter the LICENSE file. Any sub-components made >>> available under the Apache License 2.0 do not require us to make any >>> additional notes in this file. >>> >>> * Christopher Lenz's contribution is attributed in the source, but we >>> should move that to the NOTICE file so that it is in line with standard >>> procedure. >>> >>> * Your contribution is not attributed. But you could tell us on this >>> thread that you are happy with that. >>> >>> Are you happy with it? >>> >>> mail telescoped. I don't have to be happy with this. Never spoke about >> altering the license file, but documenting the parts that need too. >> >> >> If most people think it's OK to release as is, then go for it. hence my >> +0. >> >> - benoit >> >>> >>> On 14 October 2013 12:00, 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Noah Slater >>> https://twitter.com/nslater >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater > >
