go for it; pretty sure you'll get the same answer tho (we have to license stuff we distribute but we could strip on create)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH) < [email protected]> wrote: > Maybe we could ask [email protected] about this issue? They should > be able to give us a definitive answer about the alternatives. > > From: Brian LeRoux > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > > guess so yea, great first patch Martin ;) > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Could we just strip the license as a part of the create script? > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > recent discussions elsewhere indicate (to me) that while the ASL > (apache > > > software license) is compatible with other licenses but the ASF (apache > > > software foundation) doesn't want to conflate our source with other > ones > > > (reasonable imo) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Josh Soref <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
