Christopher wrote on 2/4/16 7:25 PM: > It might be relevant that that both of those tools appear to be licensed > under ASL 2.0, which explicitly permits redistribution (presumably outside > the private area?). I would think it confusing to have an open source > license on software which is expected to remain private, or otherwise > restricted from redistribution. As such, it seems prudent to move them to a > more appropriate area. That's my opinion, anyway.
Yes, the Apache license explicitly gives broad permissions. But the ASF organizationally is very conservative about actually redistributing software. That is, we *could* legally redistribute some random software we found under AL or MIT or the like, but if someone makes it clear they *didn't* intend to submit it to an Apache project, then we'll generally respect their wishes. In this case, it's all work done by ASF Committers for the purpose of doing work on Apache projects, so I can't see why it would be a problem. It's most likely that once Apache projects finished updating to 2.0 license, no-one bothered to think of these tools again. In any case, I would definitely recommend either testing them, or putting in behavior so that it doesn't actually change files in the default command line (to prevent surprises, if it doesn't work as someone anticipated). - Shane > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> a podling recently asked me why: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/relicense/ >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/tools/copy2license.pl >> are only available to commiters. I see >> no reason why, but of course I'm appreciative >> of the warning here: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/README >> >> Two questions: >> 1. Is there any disagreement that making this tool publically >> available would be a 'good thing' ? >> 2. Who should bless the svn mv if we all agree? >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >
