Le 6/24/12 10:46 AM, Chris Douglas a écrit :
Kevan-
Hi, jumping on this thread, because we have had similar discussions on
another incubating project I'm mentoring...
This argument is logical, but that doesn't make it legal and thus
required. It is also a constraint foreign to most TLPs, making its
rigid enforcement in the incubator unfair and arbitrary. Not to be
glib, but you clearly do have time to pursue this broadly and across
the foundation if, in fact, you're right and many- if not most- ASF
projects are improperly managing this obligation.
The fact that many projects at the ASF are not releasing correctly is
not a good reason for not doing it correctly for Kafka. Moreover, I'm
pretty sure that sooner or later, those projects will have to comply to
what seems to be a reasonable requirement.
The references provided do not make the argument you're forwarding, at
least they do not distinguish it from the criteria we used for
evaluating Kafka 0.7.0. The claim is that Kafka "distributes" the
transitive closure of its dependencies NOT because they're mentioned
in the build source (where you carve out an exemption), but because
these deps are mentioned AND Kafka's build produces a server. This
distinction between "applications" and "libraries" is unmentioned in
the documentation. In fact, I cannot create an argument for
documenting the transitive closure of dependencies using those
references. The argument (as forwarded) requires this step to reach
its conclusion, but it appears to be novel and unsupported. The
passages you quote are already common ground; we both agree that the
artifact must contain an "appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE file", but we
disagree on the scope of "appropriate". I continue to disagree; I
don't think the case has been made.
The closest documentation I could find was here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Which claims to be a draft of a document that also doesn't give
concrete guidance on this point.
AFAICT, the important thing is that those who will download Kafka (or
any other ASF project) can't be fooled when includig it into their own
projects. The N&L files are here to facilitate our user's work, by
listing all the external third party components we depend on, and that
includes transitive dependencies.
It's also a guarantee that we have checked that no depency contains a
transitive dependency that is *not* compatible with our licence. How
good will it be to include a dependency that includes a GPL3 licensed
3rd party itself ?
Having checked all the transitive dependencies ourself is the only way
to provide a guarantee to your users, and by listing those transitive
dependencies in the N&L files is the only way to go.
At least this is my interpretation on the various discussions we have
had in the ast two months while tryibg to cut a release on Syncope
(incubator) and SSHD (a MINA subproject).
Hope it helps...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
