Re: Doxample: Can we ship it with our code?
Hey Hiram, Is the resolution on this that we can just add a new header to his file in our distro? On 1/19/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Oren! On Jan 18, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 18:09 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote: >> ... >> Yeah the differences between the two get a bit complex and IANAL >> too :) >> >> But I think the biggest difference between the Licenses are that >> Apache licensed software is a bit more liberal with how it can be >> used. For example it allows commercial companies to make >> modifications and redistribute without giving back the changes. >> Which is contrary to the GPL philosophy. In essence the Apache, BSD, >> and MIT licenses are more Business friendly. >> >> So I light of that, you might not actually want to Apache License >> it.. And that would be OK... > > I don't feel that strongly about it. It isn't exactly the crown > jewels :-) > >> But if you don't mind other folks using your file (even for >> commercial reasons), you would just need to also add this to the >> header for us to be able to consume it: >> >> Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] >> >> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); >> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. >> You may obtain a copy of the License at >> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >> >> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, >> software >> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, >> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or >> implied. >> See the License for the specific language governing >> permissions and >> limitations under the License. > > Fine, put that in there with my name (Oren Ben-Kiki) and the current > year (2007). And hopefully within a "short period of time" this > will be > in the Autoconf archive and the problem will go away. > > Share & Enjoy, > > Oren Ben-Kiki >
Re: Doxample: Can we ship it with our code?
On Jan 18, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: I have just pinged the people in the Autoconf project and they are interested in adding this to their archive. This may take a while though. Thanks! BTW, AFAIK the main difference between the Apache license and the GPL is that Apache may be distributed in binary-only form; since my files have no binary form I don't see how they are incompatible. But IANAL. Yeah the differences between the two get a bit complex and IANAL too :) But I think the biggest difference between the Licenses are that Apache licensed software is a bit more liberal with how it can be used. For example it allows commercial companies to make modifications and redistribute without giving back the changes. Which is contrary to the GPL philosophy. In essence the Apache, BSD, and MIT licenses are more Business friendly. So I light of that, you might not actually want to Apache License it.. And that would be OK... To solve your problem in the meanwhile, I hereby formally grant you the permission to change the license line to "... the same terms as the Apache server" in your distribution. I trust that would settle the issue? But if you don't mind other folks using your file (even for commercial reasons), you would just need to also add this to the header for us to be able to consume it: Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. Oren. On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Oren, Thanks for the reply. Apache Projects can't distribute any source code that is GPL or LGPL licensed. But we can distribute Apache or BSD or MIT style licensed source code. We would not be be distributing Autoconf, but expect our developers to have it installed prior to building our source code. We could make the same assumption for your ac_doxygen.m4 too but making someone download and install that file seperately is a bit annoying for new developers checking out the project. We were hoping to distribute your ac_doxygen.m4 with our source code to make it easier for them to have Doxygen support. So is there any chance you could at least dual license that file so that could include it? Regards, Hiram
Re: Doxample: Can we ship it with our code?
Hi Oren, Thanks for the reply. Apache Projects can't distribute any source code that is GPL or LGPL licensed. But we can distribute Apache or BSD or MIT style licensed source code. We would not be be distributing Autoconf, but expect our developers to have it installed prior to building our source code. We could make the same assumption for your ac_doxygen.m4 too but making someone download and install that file seperately is a bit annoying for new developers checking out the project. We were hoping to distribute your ac_doxygen.m4 with our source code to make it easier for them to have Doxygen support. So is there any chance you could at least dual license that file so that could include it? Regards, Hiram On Jan 18, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: AFAIK Autoconf itself is released under the GPL. I believe this is compatible with the Apache license... and at any rate you must include Autoconf for my code to work, so once you do that, you don't have to worry about my code. Let me know if this is a problem, if it is I'm certain we can work something out. I'll also e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] so maybe this will be added to the official macros list... Good luck, Oren Ben-Kiki On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 21:41 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Oren, Thanks for putting together your excellent http://ben-kiki.org/ oren/doxample/ !! I work on a Messaging product called ActiveMQ. For more info see: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ We want to make use of your ac_doxygen.m4 file to get doxygen to work with our build but we are not sure what license it available to us under. It just says: # Copyright (C) 2004 Oren Ben-Kiki # This file is distributed under the same terms as the Autoconf macro files. But we are not to sure what those terms are. Ideally for us it would be terms that are compatible with the Apache Software License, which basically means stuff Apache, BSD, MIT, or other similar licenses. Please advise as we are want to do a release soon and if we cannot include your m4 script in our source distribution we need to remove it from our repository.
Doxample: Can we ship it with our code?
Hi Oren, Thanks for putting together your excellent http://ben-kiki.org/oren/doxample/ !! I work on a Messaging product called ActiveMQ. For more info see: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ We want to make use of your ac_doxygen.m4 file to get doxygen to work with our build but we are not sure what license it available to us under. It just says: # Copyright (C) 2004 Oren Ben-Kiki # This file is distributed under the same terms as the Autoconf macro files. But we are not to sure what those terms are. Ideally for us it would be terms that are compatible with the Apache Software License, which basically means stuff Apache, BSD, MIT, or other similar licenses. Please advise as we are want to do a release soon and if we cannot include your m4 script in our source distribution we need to remove it from our repository. -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
