incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberta Marton <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 02:10:55 GMT
Thanks for your quick answers.

As for #4 - the pictures were taken by someone in our organization.  I will
tell him that they look professional -:)
They are not licensed or anything, just personal photos

Since you seem to knowledgeable on License issues.  You mentioned that #11
references Open Software Foundation.  In my research this is managed by a
GNU license.  However, it looks Apache has restrictions on using these types
of licenses -  If
this is true, would this mean we can't include this file in our source


-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Mclean []
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating


> 1. HP donated the Trafodion code to Apache several months ago.  We
> have gone through all the legal steps to get the code donated.  As
> part of this process we removed all the HP copyrights except for our
> test files and documentation.  Do we have to remove all the Copyrights
> in order to release in Apache?

My understanding If the code was donated to the ASF it’s now copyright the
ASF not HP.

>  Is including HP in the NOTICE/LICENSE file adequate?

Yes that's needed as well. [1]

> 2. A conscious decision was made to add the latest Apache license to
> files that have existing licenses. So now multiple licenses are showing
> up.

Each file should have a single license header showing who owns the
copyright. BTW rat doesn’t pick up on this.

>  The original license came when the code was first used by the product.

If the code come from another project then HP probably didn't own the
copyright. If the original code is Apache licensed then you usually don’t
need to add anything to LICENSE [2], but if the software where it come from
has a NOTICE file you may need to add something to your NOTICE files [2].
all other permissive licenses need to be added to LICENSE [3].

> 3.   We have followed the instructions detailed in [8] but it looks like
> we
> are missing a mention of this in our README file.

I’m not familiar with the process but you might want to look at what the
HTTP project does in their README [2].

> 4.  We do have permission to use the photos in [13] [14].  Is there
> something we need to do to indicate this somewhere?

>From the original people who took the photos? (Just because they were in the
donation from HP doesn’t mean you have permission to use and distribute
them.) Both of the photos look professional to me. How are they licensed?
Does the photos metadata include license or copyright information? Usually
that info would go in LICENSE.

> 5. You mentioned that we may be too generous in excluding files for
> our RAT test.

Just because of the number of issues it may be that you’re not checking all
the files you shod be. I didn’t look in detail.

> 6. Justin, can we get accessibility to some of the scripts you ran to
> check for these incompatibilities?

Noting fancy script wise just rat and this:

find . -type f -exec grep “XXX" {} \; -print

Where XXX is “Copyright”, “ MIT “, “BSD”, “GPL” etc. Sometimes I pipe to a
couple of grep -v ’s to reduce the noise.



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

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

View raw message