incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: the case of the maven wrapper
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:22:44 GMT
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Ignasi Barrera <nacx@apache.org> wrote:

> In the particular case of the "MavenWrapperDownloader.java" file, I would
> say it is OK not to mention it in the LICENSE/NOTICE files, as per the
> existing policy [1]. The project does not contain a NOTICE file, so there
> is nothing to propagate there, and policy says that if the bundled
> dependency is already ASLv2, there is no need to modify the LICENSE file.
>
> IMO, it is fine that the Incubator makes the podlings aware of the "for
> completeness it is useful to list the products and their versions" part,
> but just a matter of convenience. The policy is clear, though: it should
> not be a requirement, and thus the Incubator should enforce that as such
> (I'm not pretending to say it's doing ti now; just dumping my views).
>

typo :) s/the Incubator should enforce/the Incubator should *not* enforce/


>
> We can enter the debate about fairness, ethics, etc, and mentioning
> provenance in the license (but hey, if an ASLv2 licensed project wants to
> enforce it, it can provide its own NOTICE file). In the end, what is not
> mandatory in policy should not be a requirement to be implemented by
> podlings, but a choice of every single community.
>
>
> My $0.02
>
> I.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:29, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > If we all say fine.. let's just throw more paperwork at it, I would ask
>> you
>> > to help draft a line for the NOTICE of what we would do. suppose we
>> would
>> > also have to do this for gradle etc.
>>
>> You would need to do this for any 3rd party file bundled with a release
>> and yes sometimes this is complex and takes time. See for example Apache
>> Newt. [1]
>>
>> > So basically if we accept that the new norm is this level of detail on
>> > incidental files,
>>
>> It’s a 3rd party file not an incidental file and the ASF has policy
>> around what to do when including 3rd party files which a (P)PMC and
>> releases need to comply with. [2][3]
>>
>> To comply however is a simple change that needs to be made once to
>> clearly inculcate the IP province and license of that file to users of the
>> projects.
>>
>> > would it be "this includes source generated by the takari maven plugin"?
>> > and of course if we say this, the next cruft is explaining gradle etc.
>>
>> If you don’t know what to do ask you mentors or the IPMC for help. If you
>> disagree with advice given then clarify on legal-discuss.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-newt/blob/master/LICENSE
>> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#goal
>> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

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