incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Date Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:50:07 GMT
Hi Justin,

I'm working on making the changes you suggested below. A few follow-up

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:

> Hi,
> > Hmm, I'm not seeing this -- got a line number? Line 614 in LICENSE.txt
> > says "StumbleUpon”.
> Sorry it was WebRTC line 360 and also LevelDB line 315.
WebRTC and LevelDB are both projects that were released by Google. So, the
BSD license's 3rd clause refers to Google rather than the project names.
So, will leave this.

> Can you clarify what this means?
> See [1] basically a pointer to the full test of the license in the source
> release.
> 1.

In the example provided in the link above, the "pointer" takes the form of
a file path 'deps/superwidget/'. But in our case, we are not fully
including the source distro where the code came from. Rather, we derived
some of our code from some of their code, piece-by-piece. So, we can't
point to their LICENSE file as a path within our source distro, as it's not
fully bundled. I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
because licenses may change over time, or the links may break, and thus
it's better to make sure the license text is captured at the time the
dependency is included.

Does that sound reasonable?

> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
> > isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
> > received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
> > message above and added the header requested by the ACM.
> I don’t know the full details and INAL but as far as I can tell under the
> terms of that license you have to pay to redistribute it.
> Even if you got permission to distribute from ACM are 3rd parties allowed
> to take this file and redistribute that?
> Either way it should be noted in LICENSE I think.

We are working around this by removing the file in question.


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