I'm wondering if this should be over at legal discuss On Jan 10, 2016 19:40, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. > > > > So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. > [3][4] > > > > Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a > couple of places. > > > > For instance: > > - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license > [1] > > - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this > special exception that is! > > - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to > mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as > indicated in the header text? > > - Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this > special exception as OK? [3] > > This is very serendipitous, since I was about to send a very similar > question > asking whether it would be kosher for HAWQ to ship the following folder: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config > > To make this story even more interesting: this folder has bee lifter pretty > much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that > PostgreSQL community feels it is kosher to have it in an otherwise > PostgreSQL licensed release. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
