Arved I totally agree with you. What confuses me, though, is the fact that the ASF doesn't control and enforce its policies in every project. Communication is the key. ....as always....
> > 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. Cheers, Jeremias Märki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
