What license would you propose? Remember we are an Apache project, which of course does not mean we must use the ASL2 license, but simplifies potential users evaluation regarding the licensing aspect.

Jacques


Le 16/09/2016 à 10:43, Pierre Smits a écrit :
-1 regarding the use of the ASL2 license for readme files. Because it is
the wrong license for that kind of work.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o

Jacques



Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

Hi Devs,
There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
README files.

One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header

But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
(with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.

Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
define
our policy.

So please vote

[+1] include a header in all README files

[-1] do not include a header in any README files

[0] Undecided

I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !

Jacques


In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and
not
by OFBiz.

Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
license
policy?

If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
violate the following [*]:

"A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
file's creativity, add the license header to the file."

In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup

In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
people who spent time crafting its content.

When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the
file
doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
a
name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
*personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions



Reply via email to