On 12 October 2014 17:40, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:16 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's correct.
Well, since neither of us is a lawyer (at least I am not) at this
point we're debating interpretations on ALv2.
A source distribution
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
4. presence or absence of NOTICEs in source distribution doesn't
affect binary distribution.
Not true.
Ditto.
If you are saying that the NOTICE in an ASF binary release has no
direct bearing on the NOTICE in
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Excellent. More eyes on these issues is great. Thanks for spending your time
on this.
+1
Sean and I have continued our conversation offline and were able to clarify
some aspects of our (very
On 11 October 2014 19:30, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Netty's artifacts (its distribution) do not include a notice. Thus,
They most
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:16 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
3. presence or absence of NOTICEs in binary distribution doesn't
affect source distribution.
Not true.
4. presence or absence of NOTICEs in source distribution doesn't
affect binary distribution.
Not
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:16 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's correct.
Well, since neither of us is a lawyer (at least I am not) at this
point we're debating interpretations on ALv2.
A source distribution with NOTICE may be included in an ASF binary
distribution - e.g.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes
LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are
several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is
the key sentence:
Aside
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put
in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, but I
don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated
from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what
it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either.
It is a tortured and patently
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a tortured and patently incorrect reading to assume that the license
requires TWO copies of such notices.
Sure, but, nobody said that. The question is whether at least one copy
is present, and ideally in the right
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2
licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ...
---
This
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2
licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ...
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, Netty does not include NOTICE.txt in any of its jars
for you. This text does not appear therefore in the Drill binary
distro. At least, I grepped up and down the whole distro and didn't
see it, and it's not in
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Netty's artifacts (its distribution) do not include a notice. Thus,
They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
https://github.com/netty/netty/releases/tag/netty-4.0.20.Final
and find the
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Netty's artifacts (its distribution) do not include a notice. Thus,
They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Netty's artifacts (its distribution) do not include a notice. Thus,
They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Netty's artifacts (its distribution) do not include a notice. Thus,
They
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
You are confusing different distributions. Netty provides a source
distribution which does include a NOTICE file. Netty also provides binary
(jar) distributions. These do not include a NOTICE file.
I think this is a fair
party project.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:r...@apache.org
Sent: 10/11/2014 12:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Sean
Sounds OK to me too if that is the prevailing sentiment; I personally
do not operate (non-ASF) OSS projects that way. It seems just within
the letter of the law.
What about this little transitive dep of Netty I mentioned? This is
not a NOTICE issue, and I *think* this one is beyond interpreting
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it?
Great idea.
Keep in mind that the binary NOTICE file in Drill is generated
automatically by the build code in the source distribution so any PR should
be against
: Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it?
Great idea.
Keep in mind that the binary NOTICE file in Drill is generated
automatically by the build code in the source
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
The meta-issue is that some here seem to be arguing that IP licensing
can be taken lightly because it's hard or annoying.
That's not it. I am arguing that licensing should be as minimal as possible
because that's in the
23 matches
Mail list logo
