I want to have a legal advice here. Feel free to watch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141 or add comments.
I can live with every outcome (which should be the best for us and our users from a legal point of view)... Best, Christian On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Christian Schneider wrote: > > > Very good idea. I have done some research: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-124< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#faq-**exceptions< > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions> > > > > So it looks like we are required to have the license in all files we have > > in svn and also in each artifact we distribute. The only exemption are > very > > simple files with no creativity. > > > > Still an archetype could strip that header when generating the effective > > code. The problem is that we are then unsure what this means for the > user. > > If the resulting file contains > > enough creativity then it may be copyrighted and may not be used without > a > > license (at least that is what I understood). > > > As an user I'll throw in my opinion. Generated code should either not > include a license header or it should allow for the user to specify a > header as an archetype option. Including the ASF header is the wrong option > in my opinion. It's up to the person generating the code to properly > include the appropriate license info (or none if it's not needed). > > +1 to removing the header from generated code. > > Chris > > > > > There seems to be no issue with a decision about generated code or > > archetypes in the jira. So I have created an issue to get that resolved: > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-141< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141> > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > Am 04.07.2012 11:05, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > > > > There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get > > the board involved with that. > > We should rather look for archives in legal-disc...@apache.org and in > the > > jira https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL> > > and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there. > > My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere. > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider < > > ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > > > > So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our > > next release and we already remove the license headers. > > In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated > > code and in the best case we are fine. > > > > Christian > > > > Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider: > > > > This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. > To > > > > make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the > > safe side. > > Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply > > follow. > > > > Christian > > > > Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies: > > > > I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse - > > http://www.eclipsezone.com/****eclipse/forums/t116081.html< > http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html> > > <ht**tp://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html< > http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html> > > > > > > > On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote: > > > > My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to > > > > use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for > generated/template > > code? > > If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works > > legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license > > specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already? > > > > Christian > > > > Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > > > > Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the > > user > > to decide which license to use. > > So +1 for removing any header from generated code. > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new > > projects > > http://camel.apache.org/camel-****maven-archetypes.html< > http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html> > > <http:/**/camel.apache.org/camel-maven-**archetypes.html< > http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html> > > > > > > > Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them. > > > > Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers. > > > > I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the > > *generated* files. > > Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may > > not use any license headers, > > or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header. > > > > I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it > > for the end users to decide for that. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > Claus Ibsen > > ----------------- > > FuseSource > > Email: cib...@fusesource.com > > Web: http://fusesource.com > > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews > > Blog: http://davsclaus.com > > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen > > > > > > -- > > Christian Schneider > > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > > > Open Source Architect > > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > -- > > Christian Schneider > > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > > > Open Source Architect > > Talend > > > > >
