incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <>
Subject Re: Third-party dependencies in CouchDB
Date Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:15:08 GMT
> 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  

>> 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:

View raw message