incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergio Fernández <>
Subject Re: LICENSE/NOTICE revisited (was Release Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating (RC8))
Date Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:00:54 GMT
Hi Marvin,

On 24/04/13 03:30, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> Right this would make the LICENCE files shorter. So, if I understood
>> correctly, we should switch from licenses text to pointers (...)
>> Would be that fine?
> As sebb notes, it's fine either way.

Well, since both are fine, the PPMC will discuss which way (full text 
vs. linking) would be preferable in the future. Thanks for clarifying 
this point.

>> So keep in NOTICE only those which require additional attribution
>> requirements?
> The answer as to whether a dependency requires something in NOTICE varies
> according on its license.  There's no official definition anywhere as to what
> "additional attribution requirements" might mean, so I can't answer directly.
> What I can say is:
> *   Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT-licensed dependency.
> *   Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of a three-clause BSD
>      dependency.
> *   For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto.
> *   For all other licenses, either guess :( or ask.
> I say "guess" because that's what the ASF currently forces PMCs to do, not
> because it's a good idea.  With the exception of MIT, three-clause BSD, and
> ALv2, we don't yet have documentation about what various licenses require as
> far as NOTICE.  Assembling that information will take time.  We'll probably
> need to open an individual LEGAL Jira issues for each license, e.g.
>      Does bundling a dependency under the Python Software Foundation license
>      require any additions to the ALv2 NOTICE file?

Perfect. I created MARMOTTA-213 to address such issue. Hopefully this 
experience could contribute to clarify and improve the documentation 
about that :-)

> The Marmotta community -- both core developers and Mentors -- worked really
> hard to get this right.  The amount of effort you folks put in should have
> been enough.

We did our best, which I'm pretty sure is enough. In many years 
developing open source I never faced with these problems with such 
detail. So, even it is a nasty thing, personally I found the experience 
pretty interesting and instructive.

> Probably auditing a dozen of our highest profile projects would go a long way.

Does ASF have any periodic (annually or whatever) control over the TLPs? 
Setup such checking points would detect many potential issues. But you 
are right, it's a too heavy task.

>> Before properly reviewing the binary releases, in the PPMC we are discussing
>> if such details we are discussing are something that MUST be fixed, or just
>> something we SHOULD improve in upcoming releases. This is something I
>> personally don't have clear now.
> The inclusion of unnecessary information in NOTICE is a licensing
> documentation bug.  It makes life harder for downstream consumers of your
> product who are reading LICENSE and NOTICE and trying to ensure that they
> comply with our licensing requirements.
> Personally, I don't intend to vote -1 on this specific Marmotta release
> candidate because of the NOTICE file.  You worked hard to follow the
> instructions as best you could.  The Incubator had its *own* documentation
> bug, and its unfortunate that you fell afoul of it.  I may be failing to
> uphold Roy's directives by abstaining, but that's my plan for now.
> In the future, I may vote -1 on other podling release candidates that have
> similar issues, if the podling does not have similar extenuating
> circumstances.

We will have that in mind ;-)


Sergio Fernández
Salzburg Research
+43 662 2288 318
Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)

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

View raw message