On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
> >
> > """
> > src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
> > src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
> > src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
> > src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
> > WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
> > 3-clause BSD license.
> >
> > For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
> > headers at the top of the respective files.
> > """
> >
> > ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
> > license
>
> That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
>
> > , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
>
> I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's
> just my personal preference.
>
> The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
>
>
Thanks again for the input. I started to do as you suggested and just refer
to the headers, but then I realized a slight complication -- this makes
life harder for binary distributors. Currently, a binary distribution can
simply include the 'LICENSE.txt' file (eg in
/usr/share/doc/kudu/LICENSE.txt or somesuch) and be sure that they comply
with the 2nd clause of the BSD license. If instead we refer to the source,
a binary distributor would have to do the work of copy-pasting these
notices back up into the LICENSE.txt file or other documentation in order
to comply.
Given that you said the PPMC is free to choose either way, I'll propose to
the other PPMC members that we stay with the status quo and continue
copying these licenses into the top-level file, so that binary distributors
dont have to go on a scavenger hunt.
-Todd
