Let's see what legal concludes... my postulate is that people advocating for the files in SCM have not fully considered what that implies and that the "PMC must vote on releases so that legal indemnity of committers is in place" will remove the suggested requirement to keep NOTICE and LICENSE files (which are potentially out of date - and allowed to be so by people advocating their presence in SCM - see the use of the phrase "best effort") from the table... but if it falls the other way, so be it... we'll just have several hundred of these files scattered all over the place!
On 16 September 2013 11:25, Chris Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > My take: Given we vote on a source bundle, and that includes the required > files, I think we're good. > > If it is ruled that this is not the case, do we have to change on what and > how we vote (we I think you've covered)? > > -Chris > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16/09/2013, at 7:50 PM, Stephen Connolly < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > In an effort to get to a definitive answer for > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201309.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMwUvmaoOuBJ7dpVj9qAmwVnbfcxTid7UZgc6EdEL7%2BOpg%40mail.gmail.com%3EI > > did some searching... > > > > The ASF Licensing How To includes this helpful simple snippet: > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#source-tree-location > > > > # Location Within the Source Tree > >> > > > > > > LICENSE and NOTICE belong at the [top level of the source tree][1]. They > >> may be named LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt, but the bare names are > preferred. > > > > > >> [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > > > > > If we wander over to that link: > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > > > # NOTICE file > >> > > > > > > 0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top > >> directory, along with the standard LICENSE file. > >> 1. The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text, > suitably > >> modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of distribution of the > >> current and past versions of the product: > >> Apache [PRODUCT_NAME] > >> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation > >> This product includes software developed at > >> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > >> 2. The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required > third-party > >> notices. > >> 3. The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from source > >> files submitted to the ASF. > >> 4. See also Modifications to NOTICE > > > > > > Now that is mostly OK.... but it does beg the following questions: > > > > 1. What exactly is "the top level of the source tree"? Is it the tree in > > SCM or is it the tree in the .zip or .tar.gz files that end up in the > /dist > > directory. The text I have seen would seep to imply that the phrase > refers > > to the top level of the source tree in an Apache distribution... which > > brings us to.. > > > > 2. What exactly is "an Apache distribution"? To the best of my knowledge > > this is just the .zip or .tar.gz files that end up in the /dist > directory. > > I know that other people have opinions that things like SCM also are > Apache > > distributions, but it would seem to me that the two links I cited above > > would be *very clear* in stating that SCM is viewed as a distribution if > it > > was the official view of the ASF (and perhaps it is... in which case > please > > fix the website) > > > > By way of some concrete examples, and because real world examples are > much > > much better than abstract hypotheticals. > > > > Consider the Apache Maven project. We are a top level project with many > > things that we release. We have Maven Core itself and we have many > plugins > > and other shared components that have their own release lifecycles... we > > also have some components in our Subversion repository and others in GIT > > repositories. > > > > Case 1 > > ---------- > > > > For technical reasons, i.e. given the way GIT works, it is easiest to put > > any group of things that get released as an atomic unit into a single GIT > > repository. Thus we have Maven Core (with the 12 modules that are used to > > build Maven Core) at > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=tree Now as it > > happens the top level of that group of 12 modules is the root of that GIT > > repository and we have LICENSE and NOTICE files there. As part of our > > release process we produce a source distribution of that tree and hence > the > > LICENSE and NOTICE files will be at the root of the > > apache-maven-x.y.x-src.tar.gz and apache-maven-x.y.x-src.zip files that > end > > up in the /dist directory. So in this case it does not matter whether an > > Apache distribution is only the apache-maven-x.y.x-src.tar.gz files or > also > > includes the https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git GIT > > repository. In this case we have the files at the root of both source > trees. > > > > Case 2 > > ---------- > > > > Now let us consider a different set of atomically released modules. > > Surefire consists of again 12 modules that all get released at the same > > time. The source tree in SCM is > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=tree as > > again that is a separate source repository from our other stuff. Our most > > recent source release of Surefire is > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/surefire/surefire-2.16-source-release.zipand > > if we look at that file > > > > $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/surefire-2.16-source-release.zip */LICENSE > */NOTICE > > Archive: /Users/stephenc/Downloads/surefire-2.16-source-release.zip > > Length Date Time Name > > -------- ---- ---- ---- > > 108 08-11-13 16:57 > > surefire-2.16/surefire-api/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE > > 11358 08-11-13 16:57 surefire-2.16/LICENSE > > 178 08-11-13 16:57 surefire-2.16/NOTICE > > -------- ------- > > 11644 3 files > > > > So in that Apache distribution we have the LICENSE and NOTICE files. But > > *if* SCM is also an Apache distribution, then there is an issue as the > > corresponding tag > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=tree;hb=6ba4e42610237302a83e5246a61a974aa5a6d60ddoes > > not have the LICENSE and NOTICE files. > > > > So there is a potential issue with Surefire *if* SCM is considered an > > Apache distribution... but since this is a set of things in GIT the > > resolution of the *potential* issue is trivial, we can just add the two > > files and be done. > > > > The first two were intentionally picked to show the easy cases. > > > > Case 3 > > ---------- > > > > The Maven Release plugin consists of two modules that get released at the > > same time. Source control is in Subversion: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/ > > > > The current source bundle is > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/release/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip > , > > if we take a look at that file > > > > $ unzip -l ~/Downloads/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip */LICENSE > > */NOTICE > > Archive: > /Users/stephenc/Downloads/maven-release-2.4.1-source-release.zip > > Length Date Time Name > > -------- ---- ---- ---- > > 11358 03-22-13 19:58 maven-release-2.4.1/LICENSE > > 170 03-22-13 19:58 maven-release-2.4.1/NOTICE > > -------- ------- > > 11528 2 files > > > > So again in that Apache distribution we have the LICENSE and NOTICE > > files... the tag: > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/tags/maven-release-2.4.1/does > > not. Again *if* SCM is an Apache distribution then the solution is > > trivial, we'd just add > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/LICENSE and > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/release/trunk/NOTICE and > > presto-chango we are done. > > > > Case 4 > > ---------- > > > > We have a lot of plugins and shared components that have their own > release > > cadence, for example there are currently 42 things that we release in our > > "plugins" category. The source tree is hosted in Subversion because we > > don't want to have 42 GIT repositories, one for each plugin. Here is the > > root of the "plugins" category: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/ the attentive among > > you will notice the files > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/NOTICE.txt and > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/LICENSE.txt > > > > One plugin that we release is the Remote Resources plugin (picked because > > it has had a recent release) > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/trunk/maven-remote-resources-plugin/with > > the most recent release being > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/maven/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip > > > > $ unzip -l > ~/Downloads/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip > > */LICENSE */NOTICE > > Archive: > > > /Users/stephenc/Downloads/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5-source-release.zip > > Length Date Time Name > > -------- ---- ---- ---- > > 11358 08-14-13 08:25 maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/LICENSE > > 193 08-14-13 08:25 maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/NOTICE > > -------- ------- > > 11551 2 files > > > > And the corresponding tag is > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/(notice > > that there is no NOTICE or LICENSE file in the > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/ directory) > > > > It would be a pain, and seem incredibly stupid to me that we would have > to > > add LICENSE and NOTICE files to the 100+ independent release roots that > we > > have between our plugins, site skins, shared components, etc... plus the > > top of our tree could technically be considered > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/ or better yet > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ could we call ourselves done with some > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/NOTICE and > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/LICENSE file in place? > > > > My view > > ------------ > > > > My understanding is that an Apache distribution has to be voted on by the > > PMC, otherwise it is not an Apache distribution. If anything in source > > control is an Apache distribution then running a CTR SCM policy for an > > Apache TLP would be impossible and RTC would require 3x+1 binding votes > for > > every commit rendering the "convenience" of a commit bit on a TLP > anything > > but. > > > > So then I make the argument that only one of the following two postulates > > are true: > > > > * There is no requirement for the PMC to vote on Apache distributions and > > we can just let committers throw out releases without having PMC vote > > threads. > > * Source control is not an Apache distribution and hence we do not need > to > > have LICENSE and NOTICE files in source control, it can be a nice > > convenience, but there is no *requirement*. > > > > Can the foundation please resolve which of the above two statements is > > actually true (or maybe someone could check in a > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/LICENSE and a > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/NOTICE so that all TLPs using Subversion > > would be absolved of having to worry about what they have in their source > > trees) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
