On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> Coming in late. > >> > >> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/ > >> release. > > > > Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a > > LICENSE file at the top, I would think that this counts as a legal > > 'publication' under the terms of the license. > > > > if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our > > repositories? > > > > A file that exists on a public source repo, with an associated > license is, of course, covered under that license. The issue is > what is the combined, derivative work under? I can, for example, > take a handful of ALv2 files, combine them as-is and license > the WORK as GPLv3 for example. > > Furthermore, a release should have such things as a NOTICE file, > etc, as required. Again, no idea if that is included in a snap-shot > or not. > > A release is such that the release artifact is verified as > compliant w/ the ALv2, and is an official action of the foundation; > A snapshot may or not be "verified" but for sure is not an > official action and the person providing the snapshot does > so at their own risk. > I was working from some significant miss-assumptions which I won't go into here, to avoid confusing other readers, not unless I understand things thoroughly. On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > I did NOT SAY that... holy moley. I said that licenses kick in > at a release, but I not not say that they don't kick-in at > other times; also, a release is guaranteed to be under ALv2 > (it is our "work") and there is no guarantee on said snapshot, > depending on how it is created. Yes, I should have given your statement the benefit of the doubt. Whether your statement had been incomplete, outright wrong, or absolutely on point, my venting was inexcusable. On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Cut it out. > I apologize to you for my antagonistic tone. It was a combination of being several days deep into a head cold, and fundamentally misunderstanding the provenance of svn.
