> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: June 26, 2002 5:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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. Regards, Arved Sandstrom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
