On 1 November 2012 13:16, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1 November 2012 00:34, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:49 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 31 October 2012 21:12, Robert Burrell Donkin >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Whisker[1] generates LICENSE and NOTICE documents from meta-data. An >>>>> optional source URL can be associated with each resource contained in a >>>>> distribution. Originally, this supported licenses which require the source >>>>> to be printed in the NOTICE but Apache CloudStack[2] would like to >>>>> include a >>>>> source URL in the LICENSE. This would be unconventional but I'm not sure >>>>> it >>>>> would be harmful. >>>>> >>>>> So, I'm leaning towards introducing a configuration allow this >>>>> >>>>> Opinions? Objections? >>>> >>>> The content of URLs can change, so provided the current content is >>>> included in the LICENSE file I don't see any harm in also including >>>> the URL from which it was derived. >>> >>> Actually, and please do correct me if I don't understand the whisker >>> meta-data correctly, we (the CloudStack project) are using the >>> "source" attribute to provide a URL from which the reader can access >>> the source code of a dependency or included software artifact. Have I >>> misunderstood that attribute? >> >> Or maybe I have. > > The documentation [1] is a little confusing, but as I read it (and the > CDDL clause that I believe is being mentioned), I think it's > specifically designed to provide a method of linking to the source > code. This isn't important when we are distributing the source > itself, but does matter when we are trying to create the legal > documents that cover a binary distribution. > > Given the interpretation above, the reasoning for having the source > link in the LICENSE file was specifically for scenarios where there > isn't a NOTICE requirement for a particular resource, but we are > required to provide a link to the source code.
OK, in that case I have no objections. > [1] http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/meta-data.html#Source_Links > >> >>>> However, I don't think the LICENSE file should contain only the URL. >>>> Apart from the fact that the content might vary, the end-user should >>>> not have to go fetch another file - the LICENSE file should be >>>> complete. >>> >>> Absolutely. The actual license needs to be in the LICENSE file. >>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://creadur.apache.org/whisker >>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHISKER-3 >>>> >>
