File bitcask.licensing of Package erlang-bitcask

Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning justin@basho.com does not designate 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.178;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikWPD6DbCym=UOZ4bY_3MVd2QaXCSQZ2E61kGNO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikWPD6DbCym=UOZ4bY_3MVd2QaXCSQZ2E61kGNO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:18:08 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikf8GUs=r7kkPwaUfhpCi+YHx6sLpzOKsbmwcnn@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some Bitcask parts have unclear licensing status.
From: Justin Sheehy <justin@basho.com>
To: Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Peter.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@gmail.com> wrote:

> First of all, sorry for contacting you directly and for headline
> exaggerated a bit.

No problem.

> I started the following project within Fedora Community, which main
> goal is to provide easy installation of Riak in Fedora Linux
> distribution right from the box:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Riak

There are some interesting claims in there about how "hard" it is to
install Riak, but I understand that phrasing it that way might be
useful to you.  For most users that don't want to use our pre-built
RPMs they only need Erlang and the Riak repository and the build
process will handle the rest.  Of course, having official distribution
packaging would be great -- as long as it doesn't cause operational
problems.

We have very good reasons why a Riak build creates a final package
which includes bitcask, webmachine, and so on.  If it is broken in
such as way as to rely on external installations of these things at
runtime (instead of compile time) then we would consider it to be an
unsupportable fork.

> Things were move quite quickly so far, but now I stumbled upon the
> unexpected legal issues with Bitcask:
>
> * No legal information within "include/bitcask.hrl" and
> "c_src/erl_nif_compat.h" files. I know this sounds silly, but could
> you add a header with the ASL 2.0 license to both of these files? This
> is a blocker issue, and I can't move further until it will be
> resolved.

That's easy enough.  That is a simple oversight and will be fixed.

> * The file =A0"doc/bitcask-intro.pdf" doesn't have (at least clearly
> visible) legal status. At least, we need a permission to redistribute
> it without changes, otherwise I won't package this file within bitcask
> rpm. Fortunately, this is not a blocker, so if it is not possible to
> allow redistribution without modification, then I just remove it.

I give you permission to distribute it as-is.

> * Also it would be great if you (or someone else from Basho) adds
> COPYING or LICENSE file to Bitcask repository (a clear statement in
> README regarding which parts of project are covered by this license
> would be great too).

This will be added.

> Again, I'm apologizing for contacting you directly, but I can't find
> mail-list dedicated to development of Riak-related projects. Also
> bitcask doesn't have "issues" page enabled at GitHub, so I can't
> submit this request there.

The mailing list:
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com

The bugzilla: https://issues.basho.com/

However, no need to raise these issues there now that you've talked
with me about them.  I can handle it.

-Justin