incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damien Katz <>
Subject Re: Third-party dependencies in CouchDB
Date Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:07:58 GMT
Thanks for your help on this Curt. I'm sorry we've been negligent on  
ASF process around bringing in code, and we will fix that with proper  
votes on the already included code and follow ASF procedure for new  


On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:

>> Noah Slater | 9 Aug 12:42 wrote:
>> I think this is a poor summary. Your thread was taken seriously,  
>> and people responded, but as far as I knew, discussion was still  
>> ongoing. The way you've worded it could lead people into thinking  
>> that you were ignored.
> Did not mean to imply that it was ignored, just that the suspect  
> commit was not reverted until the issue of the third-party code was  
> resolved.
>>> I'm having problems pointing to a definitive statement that says  
>>> that these are things that an Apache project doesn't do, but am  
>>> struggling to  come up with anything definitive.
>> You're implying that people have disagreed with you, which is  
>> misleading. One of our committers has already requested the SGAs  
>> for erlang-oauth and ibrowse, and is looking into possible  
>> trademark issues. He's told me this morning that he's intending to  
>> call a vote as required by the import procedure, once he's sorted  
>> this out.
> I was implying that I'm beyond the level that I can speak  
> authoritatively and that I could not readily find an explicit  
> statement on the policy.  Depending on the third-party components  
> with those licenses is pretty clearly acceptable but having its full  
> source expanded and open for modifications seemed over the line  
> based on my recollections of discussions here.  There is a boundary  
> somewhere in the middle, but exactly where that is I'm uncertain.
> I have not seem discussion on a potential software grant (SGA) or  
> vote on the project mailing list.
>> Niclas Hedhman | 9 Aug 12:54 wrote
>> Curt,
>> Two things come to my mind immediately, and this is without reading  
>> your references (might do that when I'm back at a computer).
>> 1. CouchDb graduated long ago, and is no longer the concern of the  
>> Incubator in particular. If you have legal concerns that the  
>> CouchDb doesn't want to address, I suggest you seek further info  
>> from legal-discuss, and if it isn't of legal nature, go to the  
>> Board or Membership with the concerns...
>> 2. Speaking from a legal perspective, there is nothing "at Apache"  
>> that prevents people for doing source code copy, in small or large  
>> (a.k.a forks), PROVIDED that the license allows it. I saw you  
>> mentioning BSD (modified I hope) and MIT X, and those licenses  
>> require attribution and few other things, so if that is done, there  
>> is no legal contention here. Now you said that Apache doesn't  
>> fork... well the reason behind that (I think) is that we are all  
>> lazy, it takes a lot of energy to maintain forks. And we don't do  
>> it to compete with the original project, out of courtesy... is that  
>> your complaint?
>> I appreciate your concerns, just target the right audience and  
>> preferably with the invitation of the CouchDb PMC... -- Niclas
> It was a bad call on my part on the mailing list.
> On the forking, even if the original code was ASL licensed, it  
> should still need to go through the Incubator (either as a podlet or  
> as a software grant) prior to an ASF project releasing a forked  
> version.  I would assume that it would require even more oversight  
> for a non-ASL licensed to be forked by the ASF.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message