On Monday 31 December 2007 17:13, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Dec 31, 2007 6:33 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This release would get my vote, subject to the RAT report which I have > > not run yet. The Incubator PMC is eternally grateful if the RAT report is > > published as well. > > Available at > http://people.apache.org/~jukka/river/2.1.1/apache-river-2.1.1-incubating.r >at
Excellent... > > * The Notice mentions that the release contains Copyrighted material > > from Sun Microsystems. That is Ok, but it should also mention that Sun > > has licensed this to ASF under ALv2. > > Do we need to do that in the NOTICE file? I wouldn't mind doing that, > but should the NOTICE file carry the licensing histories as well as > copyright notices? The fact that the code is ALv2 licensed is already > stated in LICENSE and we have the paper trail for the contribution. I think a short "licensed to ASF under Apache License v2.0" would be better. > For example, the example NOTICE file at > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt doesn't contain > licensing histories. > > > * The Notice mentions the Service UI project, developed by several > > individuals, but doesn't mention any licensing. If the ServiceUI was > > ALv2 from the beginning, then mention that. If it was something else, I > > think that could possibly be an encumbered codebase, depending on > > circumstances. I suggest that the Mentor(s) list this for investigation, > > and clarify the result both in the incubating status file as well as in > > the NOTICE. > > See above. We have a software grant for the ServiceUI contribution > which makes it distributable under ALv2. Of course we could better > document the licensing history (previously under Sun Community Source > License), but I'm not sure it's necessary or even relevant. Ok, so each and *all* contributors to the ServiceUI project have either; a) Made a copyright assign to Bill or Artima, which in turn has a Software Grant to ASF, OR b) Signed off to change the license from SCSL to ALv2 prior to coming to ASF, OR c) Provided a Software Grant, for their contribution, to the ASF. (Perhaps some other scenario is satisfactory as well, I just can't think of any.) I still think a similar text as above is suitable to simplify for downstream users. Everyone, sorry for being a pain in the butt, but this is what ASF is all about when it comes its legal respect among our downstream users. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
