> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: June 26, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: Licence short or long
> Hi committers
> I think I need to bring up a subject that not so comfortable but that
> has to be brought up again IMO. On the Avalon dev list they fight again
> between long and short licences in source code. We have the short form
> but it seems like we have to switch (back?) to the long form.
> Here's the link to the discussion:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102509747200005&r=1&w=2
> What do you think?

It's news to me that the board changed their mind. I'm not saying that they
did not, it's just I haven't heard that they now forbid the short form. I'll
see what I can find out.

And in fact the short form was explicitly okayed some time ago. When we
decided to switch over it wasn't just an off-the-cuff haphazard decision.

Personally I think the long form stinks. Every source file I open from an
ASF project I immediately have to scroll down 1 or 2 pages to see actual
source. And just copying and pasting the long Jakarta license into a text
editor I see that it is 2700 bytes. Multiply that by 500 source files or
1000 source files and you have 0.5 MB or 1 MB (uncompressed) of garbage when
a simple short pointer to a _single_ long license in the distro ought to be
enough. These were both points that have been expressed before and I think
they are still valid.

But that's common sense. When did licensing ever mesh with common sense? :-)
If we have to switch back to the long form, oh well. Not much choice there.

Arved Sandstrom

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to