On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:22 AM Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Ignasi Barrera <n...@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/ > Agreed, +1, there is nothing for us to enforce here. While it would be nice to include a mention, the author does not include any NOTICE so there is nothing for us to propagate to users for a notice that is mandated by ASF policy nor Apache License. > > > > > > 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 <jus...@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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> >
