On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > The specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake, > which > > is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary > > distribution. > > If there is a binary distribution why was it not voted on at the same > time? Normally if something is the binary and not in the source your need a > different LICENSE file for each type of release. [1][2] > There is no binary distribution, but we do want to make life easier for downstream distributors (so they don't have to go on license scavenger hunts). That's why the license file makes reference to binary distributions. The above case refers to a file which is part of the source distribution but _not_ the binary distribution. In that case, we provide a "pointer" to the source, which has the license, rather than copy-pasting the license (as discussed in the 0.7.0RC3 release thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201603.mbox/%3CCADY20s4RWd45kG7%2BrkAkkNg5Hh_7%2Bfy2LtSqh_ouhdXVccwLFQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E ) > > > Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that > > you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include > > "pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to > be > > reproduced. > > Legally AFAICS it meet the terms of the license. it’s just not consistent > (i.e. mixing long and short forms of licenses) and may cause some confusion > for anyone looking into it. > OK. Are you suggesting that for our next release we go back to fully copying all licenses into LICENSE.txt rather than providing pointers? (i.e. essentially reverting back to what we did for 0.7.0?) > > > https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4 > <https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4> > > Subtle difference it says “BSD-style” (which in this context I think just > means permissive). Compare the clauses in zlib and BSD and you see it’s > zlib. Given they both permissive and both compatible with Apache it’s a > very minor issue. > Right, it has some clauses from BSD and some from zlib. (it's not identical to zlib either afaict). If you prefer we say "BSD style" instead of "Hybrid BSD" I can make that change. -Todd
