RE: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound

2011-12-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
-Original Message- From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com] < http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3cCAJjMeYMb0+uCrbuaX83b1NSbhq8G3SfzafXUkfrKjxi=ubq...@mail.gmail.com%3e> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:06 To: general@incubator.apach

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Patrick Hunt
Thanks Kevan. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B, >> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this >> case singular "the ASF" or t

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Kevan Miller
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B, > is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this > case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to > include the NOTICE file from B in the

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Patrick Hunt
I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119 Thanks all! Patrick On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >> O

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound

2011-12-06 Thread Hyrum K Wright
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Uh, here's the TRAC License: . > > You have to do what it says.  The language is very simple.  So is the > Copyright notice. > > If this is the codebase that you propose to be the foundation of

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Patrick Hunt
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: >> >>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under >>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this: >>> http

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Kevan Miller
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under >> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this: >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-no

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Patrick Hunt
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll open a discussion for this on the whirr list/jira. Patrick On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own > product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If > you don't sh

Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)

2011-12-06 Thread Niclas Hedhman
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a "System Requirement" or "Optional Plugin", then you don't need it. ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depe