On 19/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > On 18/08/2009, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ant, > > > > > > > > I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy. > > > > > > > > After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so > many > > > > > > > times, I thought the consensus was to put *all* licenses into the top > level > > > LICENSE file. But having just scoured the official public pages > promulgating > > > policy, I can't find it. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's continue the discussion. > > > > > > > > I still believe that it's bad form to put licenses in several places > in > > > > > > > distributions because users might not find them and thereby not know > what > > > they're getting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may consider it bad form, but until it is actually documented as > > > incubator or ASF policy I wouldn't consider it to be enough to block a > > > release. Especially since I am quite sure there will be a debate about > > > whether it must be one way or the other. > > > > > > > Surely we should be making things easy for the end-users of the software? > > > > AIUI ASF policy is for there to be "no surprises". > > > > Having a single starting point - the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the > > top-level directory - seems to me to be the way to do this. > > > > I agree. > > > > > It's really unfair to expect end-users to trawl around the directory > > structure looking for license files, whose names are non-standard. > > > > I didn't say anything about trawling around the directory structure.
I did not mean to imply that you did ... > But > blocking a release because the LICENSE file has a pointer to a directory vs > including the licenses in the file is inappropriate until either the IPMC or > ASF documents that. But the problem was that the Cassandra LICENSE file did neither - it did not contain the 3rd party licenses, and it did not point to them either. I do think that's worth fixing before a release (and is why I mentioned the need to trawl the directory structure). I don't personally mind which approach is taken, so long as one can start with the top-level LICENSE file and find all the relevant licenses from it. > And I don't mean to imply that you are suggesting that a > release should be blocked due to that. > Not quite, but I am saying that the release should be blocked until the LICENSE file either contains a copy of each different licence or has a link to each different license. The Httpd example posted elsewhere in this thread as a good example of how to communicate the details to the end-user, and the format is also reasonably easy to check during release votes. > Ralph > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
