Ian, On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Ian Wild <ian.w...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Assuming the Trac project wants to take Apache Bloodhound code, why is > shipping the Apache v2 license file and adding an appropriate attribution > in the form of a boilerplate to any file that contains Apache licensed code > 'impossible'? > Felix's previous message explains this: > Otherwise [barring a right to relicense] Trac is licensed under 'BSD + Apache' (most files under BSD, some > Apache) which effectively makes it 'Apache' for the complete source code (as > it is nearly impossible to deal with licensing on a file/hunk level). Also > this is a pain when comes to license auditing: different licenses within the > same body of source code are a great mess unless you pick the most restrictive > license and assume the whole code is under that license (e.g. Apache+BSD code > in GPL software -> assume GPL for every file and you won't violate the > Apache/BSD licenses). I see that this same point also came up on the Apache Incubator discussion thread[1]. Marvin Humphrey said: > Presumably there will be significant modifications to the BSD codebase by > Apache contributors as time goes along. If these modifications fall under the > ALv2, then files with a BSD license header will contain a mix of ALv2 and BSD > code. Short of maintaining our contributions as diffs :) how are we to > communicate which parts of the files fall under BSD and which parts fall under ALv2? These considerations were not addressed in the subsequent conversation on that list. -Ethan [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3C20111210185539.GA28129%40rectangular.com%3E -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to trac-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to trac-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
