incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Volkert <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 1.3 RC2
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:05:38 GMT
> >  > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
> >  > icons; see for
> >  > the full text.
> >
> > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk.  Given that we got it from
> >, which is the license
> linked to
> >  off the silk icon home page, should this block a release?
> Yes, because it's not actually the license.

I'm adding the full license to the trunk now, but with all due respect, I'm
gonna wait for an IPMC opinion on this one, since we've already gone out
with the 1.1 and 1.2 releases with the existing license (and since this is
an incubating release).  Don't get me wrong: I'm not against re-tagging if
it's required; but no sense in calling off the vote prematurely.

>  > For 3rd party libraries which use the AL 2.0 license (e.g. Smack &
> >  > Groovy) for completeness this should be noted in the LICENSE file.
> >
> > the NOTICE file says which items are Apache 2.0 licensed, and the LICENSE
> >  file contains the Apache 2.0 license text.  Is this not sufficient?
> It would make life a lot easier for users (and reviewers) if the
> LICENSE file had the complete list.

Just to be clear what you're saying, you want something like the following
at the very top of the LICENSE file:

"For Apache Tomcat's Servlet 2.5 implementation, the Smack Jabber API, and
the Groovy scripting engine:"

Saying that they're Apache 2.0 licensed in the NOTICE file would seem to be
sufficient, given that users and reviewers will see the Apache license at
the top of the LICENSE file.  The other licenses are shown to what they
pertain because otherwise it'd be hard to search for them in the LICENSE

If we add the afformentioned line at the top, should we also add "and for
Apache Pivot"?  Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting, it seems
like we're catering to the lowest common denominator here.

>  > The NOTICE file mentions VMWare, but fails to mention any associated
> >  > license.
> >
> > That's because VMware maintains a copyright ownership over the code
> >  contributed to the ASF, as described in the "Overview" and "Source File
> >  Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" sections of the ASF Source Header
> and
> >  Copyright Notice Policy (
> >  This copyright notice is pursuant to ASF copyright notice policy.
> That's why there is a mention in the NOTICE file, but surely there
> must be some license associated with the VMWare code? What is it, and
> where is it?

Actually, IANAL, but I think you're wrong.  VMware hasn't licensed the file
to the ASF - they've donated it to the ASF -- but are still covered by
copyright protection.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message