jclouds-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ignasi <ignasi.barr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache jclouds 1.6.1-incubating, RC2
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:35:33 GMT
Thanks for the feedback David,

Those json files do not have the license headers, because they are in
the src/test/resources package and are only intended to be used as
test expectation data. This was already discussed in [1] and the
conclusion was that the licensing creativity clause justified this.
Should we change something here?

Regarding the json files with copyright, it is not the file itself
what is copyrighted. Those files contain the json representation (the
body of a  Chef REST API response) of a cookbook. So the cookbook
itself has a license, and if you download the cookbook from the
Opscode Community site, then you have to respect it; but those json
files are just the body of a REST response, which includes the
metadata of the cookbook (and its licensing information too); but it
is just the Api response in json format; nothing we are
re-distributing or similar.

The resources/LICENSE.txt and resources/NOTICE.txt have the same
purpose than the ones in the resource folder in the jclouds main
distribution. Since jclouds-chef is in a different repository, the
resources directory was also included there. Should it be removed?

Thanks for your feedback,


[1] http://markmail.org/message/pg2hxols62sfas3z

On 4 June 2013 15:06, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:03 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm extending the vote another 24 hours for our mentors to respond.
>>> A.
> Looking at jclouds-chef
> There are a number of json files that don't have license headers. I
> understand json doesn't really have a concept of comments.
> That said - there are a number of copyright declarations in some of
> those json files.
> A side note - those json files are copyrighted by other individuals,
> and I think will require NOTICE attributions.
> That said - it's a thorny problem, should we try and emulate the
> copyright statement of some of the json files that have copyright
> statements in them?
> I also wonder about resources/LICENSE.txt and resources/NOTICE.txt -
> why are those present?
> --David

View raw message