Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
If you want to strictly follow #2 rule then all of them will need a
different NOTICE/LICENSE for each package but as you can see this is an
extensive list and they all use the same file. If this is really an issue
for the board
no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs
Cool!
I only head "Legal Affairs" in the context of 3rd party before:
"Licenses not appearing on these lists must be explicitly approved by
the ASF Legal Affairs officer prior to distribution."
So, as long as we comply with what is already written in the 3rd party
document we (JAMES PMC) can decide whatever we want and there is no ASF
policy for this?
and #2 is a rule for the board then the board should read this
list and take action to allow people understand there is such a rule,
because WE (ASF committers) are not really aware of all of this stuff: we
need as few rules as possible, but written somewhere :-)
no: this a matter for the PMCs and legal affairs
Sorry but this is not clear. In this specific case: is it something we
can decide ourselves or something we should submit to legal affairs?
Should I open a JIRA issue on the new LEGAL JIRA for this?
FWIW I'm much more scared by the missing NOTICE file in the netware binary
package of httpd than the fact that each of the NOTICE above may include
sentences not appropriate for the source or the binary package.
*IMHO*: The first is a legal issue, the second is instead a matter of style
and personal preference.
why is it a legal issue?
*IF* the "netware package of httpd" includes third party stuff requiring
attribution they are violating the license for that stuff because they
forgot to place there the NOTICE including the attribution.
Isn't this a legal issue?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
