Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[mohammad nabil]

hi all,
  well, 35 emails till now :s
-mohammad

From: Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:52:36 -0500

Ceki G�lc� wrote:

2) Good faith but cautious interpretation

In this case, someone is worried that the license applies to the
license file itself but not to other files. Thus, he or she decides
not use our software for fear of violating copyright law. Isn't this a
bit farfetched? Couldn't we address this concern in the license FAQ?

I happen to work for a large corporation which has an annoying tendency to err towards the cautious side when making such interpretations.

Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice
but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen?

Judgement calls like this are always relative. It certainly is possible that someone caught in a situation where they are required to make a cautious interpretation might feel less than charitably inclined towards the citizens who made choices against the recommended practices of their community, particularly when they find such choices making their life more difficult.

- Sam Ruby



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>