In theory, shouldn't we be able to put that file under an MIT/BSD license to make people happier?
Getting sample content to be usable by others is a pain, and something that is one of the last steps people work on. I think Mozilla moved its tests to MIT to address this. I have no idea what Apache's policy is. Unfortunately, I can't find any good examples of this… https://github.com/eclipsesource/raspberry-pi-examples/blob/master/com.ecli psesource.iot.photosensor-example/src/com/eclipsesource/iot/photosensor/exa mple/Main.java Has an Eclipse license on a sample, which is probably just as bad. http://hg.netbeans.org/main/file/23e994b27837/apisupport.crudsample/crud-sa mple-application/CustomerDBAccess/src/demo/Customer.java Has GPL/CDDL. GPL is clearly useless. I'm not sure CDDL is more helpful than Apache. http://www.contactandcoil.com/software/a-very-fast-tutorial-on-open-source- licenses/ http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/200710.mbox/%3C62FEC22 [email protected]%3E http://apache.org/legal/3party.html#category-a http://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/245/cc-by-vs-mit-or-bsd-license s-regarding-re-use https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ I think we should probably get permission and relicense those files as CC-0. CC-0 isn't in the list that Apache has whitelisted, but I think we should be able to convince apache that this is the right license for these files (and similar template files to be used to generate content that a consumer is supposed to be able to do w/ however they please). On 12/10/14, 2:02 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote: >no mistake, but it is a requirement for us to distribute code at apache. >you are free to remove and relicense as you wish. > >On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Martin Sidaway <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> I'm a bit puzzled by the Apache license notice present in the following >> files after doing "cordova create": >> >> www/index.html >> www/js/index.js >> www/css/index.css >> >> The trouble is that if I begin my project by extending those files, it >> seems like the Apache license covers my changes as well as the original >> template. It also seems like I am saying that my changes are "licensed >>to >> the Apache Software Foundation under one or more contributor license >> agreements". And it doesn't seem like the Apache license would allow me >>to >> remove those notices. >> >> So am I right in thinking that if I want to develop software that I >>might >> not intend to be Apache-licensed and/or licensed to ASF, I have to >>delete >> these 3 files and start from scratch? >> >> This sort of thing seems a little inappropriate in a template. Basically >> what it means is that I have to (1) work out what the template does and >> which parts I actually need to begin a project, (2) rewrite those parts >>by >> hand (basic html document structure, meta/viewport tag, etc.) taking >>care >> not to resort to copy/paste, (3) gradually realise that the aspects of >>my >> app that behave inconveniently on certain platforms correspond to >>things I >> chose not to copy over from the template. >> >> Is there any other way to approach this? Is it a mistake? >> >> Thanks. >>
