On 16 September 2013 13:31, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 16 September 2013 13:20, Stephen Connolly < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 16 September 2013 11:48, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 16 September 2013 10:50, 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. >>> >>> AIUI a distribution is not the same as a release. >>> >> >> So we are agreed that the current site documentation is completely >> unclear. I can see both sides, the ASF does not pay me enough for me to >> make a decision one way or the other, however we need a decision. >> >> >>> [snip] > > My view >>> >> > ------------ >>> > >>> > My understanding is that an Apache distribution has to be voted on by >>> the >>> > PMC, otherwise it is not an Apache distribution. >>> >>> AIU, only a release has to be voted on. >>> >>> The contents of SCM are subject to ongoing vetting by the PMC to >>> ensure that only appropriately licensed files are committed. >>> [And if any problems are later found, the PMC must ensure the >>> offending files are dealt with appropriately] >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> IMO, that does not follow. >>> >> >> Because you have already stated your opinion that not all Apache >> distributions are Apache releases. >> >> My view is that only Apache releases are Apache distributions. Not >> everything on ASF hardware is an Apache distribution... If I put some >> personal work up on people.apache.org... is that an Apache distribution? If >> we establish that being on a *.apache.org server does not a distribution >> make, then we establish the principle that the source control repository >> does not necessarily need to be considered an Apache distribution. >> >> This sounds like a more fundamental question that needs answering, as if >> I am right then the following is legitimate... If I am wrong people need to >> be very careful about what goes up on people.apache.org and there is a >> lot of red tape that we will be wrapping ourselves in... I would argue that >> the position counter to mine is one that has the very strong potential to >> effectively kill off the foundation. >> >> >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> The above paragraph contains two assertions, only the first of which >>> is true IMO. >>> >> >> Based on your opinion that not all distributions are releases >> >> >>> >>> > * 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*. >>> >>> I don't believe that is true. >>> >>> Taken as a whole, I don't believe either of your postulates are true. >>> >>> > 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) >>> >>> +1 to resolving the ambiguity. >>> >> >> exactly... I think most pertinent question is now >> >> "What is an Apache distribution?" >> >> I see two potential answers: >> >> 1. Only a voted on release that ends up in the project's /dist directory >> is an Apache distribution >> 2. Any source code on any ASF hardware is an Apache distribution >> >> I personally reject #2 by using reductio ad absurdum whereby I conclude >> that each and every directory in Subversion source control is a potential >> expected checkout point, and hence we should put N&L files in *every* >> directory in Subversion (because hey! I may just want the one utility >> method in some sub-module)... perhaps infra could give us a post-commit >> hook or a pre-commit hook to assist. >> > > I wanted to look at the HTML source of ASF legal's distribution of its > legal guide for committers... > > http://www.apache.org/NOTICE > http://www.apache.org/NOTICE.txt > http://www.apache.org/legal/NOTICE > http://www.apache.org/legal/NOTICE.txt > > The above are all 404's > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > > says > > <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more > contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this > work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF > licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the > "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with > the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at . > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 . Unless required by > applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the > License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR > CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the > specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. > --> > > I cannot find the NOTICE file distributed with the > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html file, where is the NOTICE > file for the distribution? > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/ > Nope, no NOTICE there > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/ > Nope, none there either > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/ > Again none there > > HTML is source, the content itself has the standard license header... if > #2 is true then WHERE IS THE NOTICE in the SCM distribution? > > If #2 is actually legal's position, then they need to lead by example. > I wanted to generate some HTML for the Apache Maven site to assist our committers in understanding what they had to do with respect of source headers and other legal issues. I saw on the Apache website that the legal team have written a program in the Markdown language that drives a HTML generator engine to create some similar content. I decided it would be a good idea to check out your program rather than try and invent the wheel. I expected that if I checked out your distribution from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/that it would contain all the required information. The file http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/index.mdtextcontains a header stating that I needed to consult the NOTICE file distributed with this work in order to get the information regarding copyright owners of the work. I am now in a bind as I cannot find such a file in the distribution at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/legal/ I tried other collective works which contained your work, such as http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ but none of these contained the NOTICE file as one would expect at the source root. Further complicating the issue is that I now cannot contribute my work in good faith to the Maven site distribution as I am unable to update our own NOTICE file to reflect the fact that I have included the work that you are distributing. At this point I really do have to question whether the source control repository where your source control happens to be stored, and happens to have public access for the convenience of committers, is really an Apache distribution. Sincerely, Stephen > >> >> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >
