incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound
Date Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:55:39 GMT
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:22:28PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
> There are three types of code that will go into the final Apache
> Bloodhound release:
> 1) the original stuff from Edgewall
> 2) the pre-packaged popular plugins from third-parties
> 3) original code committed here at the ASF
> The code under (1) will have its original BSD license. The code from
> (2) will have its license, or it may be ALv2 if we get SGAs from those
> developers. And, of course, all code under (3) will be under ALv2.
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

I have not yet been able to find clear guidance in the existing dev

    4. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should
       typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of
       the third-party source for convenience.

    5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
       case-by-case basis by the PMC.

There are certainly numerous precedents for bundling of BSD code with Apache
products, and it is not hard to understand how minor patches here and there
would work as contributions implicitly licensed under the upstream license.
But are there any precedents for handling major mods?

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message