Re: License change for new year ?
On 1/9/02 9:13 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:45, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On 1/9/02 8:30 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid. Of course. What I am asking is what makes it a Jakarta rule that the mentioned procedure is how it's supposed to work. See what I'm getting at? not really sure what you mean. The one thing that the PMC is required to do is enforce all the legalities of stuff. This is legality thing that has to be done. The PMC has to enforce regardless or not it is in the rules for jakarta Never mind. My point wasn't important. I'll try to explain OOB. Jon said put that rule in and I was wondering about the process of when we decided that specific thing was a rule. I don't see it as an addition - merely documenting something that already is implictly a rule. I never knew about this sort of thing until about 9 months ago when a lawyer tried to explain it all to me (though failed at some parts cause I had no idea what he was talking about). Documenting it is good because then people who know not a lot about legalese and friends don't have to think ;) Yes, I know. It's good. No argument. If it was an actualy change proposed it would have to go through the whole propose, bitchslap, whine, vote, propose, whine, bitchslap, vote until it got accepted (and ignored), agreed to or everyone thought the subjects was dull and stopped participating ;) Again, I'll try OOB. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting We will be judged not by the monuments we build, but by the monuments we destroy - Ada Louise Huxtable -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:55, Vincent Massol wrote: 1/ Now that we are in 2002, do we need to change the text in all our license files to be : Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software Foundation instead of Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation ? should change it to include 2002. However the start date is determined by when the project actually started/was donated to Apache - so many of the newer ones will be 2001-2002 2/ Some license files only have Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation and some others have a year range as in Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation. Should one be preferred over the other ? Are they both valid ? It should be the longest duration at which it has been continuously developed and owned by Apache. So most projects will be one of 1999-2002 2000-2002 2001-2002 However some projects were mothballed and if we ever restarted work on them we would have to do something like 1999-2000,2002 (for stylebook for instance) -- Cheers, Pete No. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. -- Yoda -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. But I'm not sure that we need to any automatic updates of source files that have not changed. -Ted. Berin Loritsch wrote: Peter Donald wrote: On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:55, Vincent Massol wrote: 1/ Now that we are in 2002, do we need to change the text in all our license files to be : Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software Foundation instead of Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation ? should change it to include 2002. However the start date is determined by when the project actually started/was donated to Apache - so many of the newer ones will be 2001-2002 2/ Some license files only have Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation and some others have a year range as in Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation. Should one be preferred over the other ? Are they both valid ? It should be the longest duration at which it has been continuously developed and owned by Apache. So most projects will be one of 1999-2002 2000-2002 2001-2002 However some projects were mothballed and if we ever restarted work on them we would have to do something like 1999-2000,2002 (for stylebook for instance) Basically once the code is published in some form, (I.e. public CVS, official release, etc.) you have to have a stamp on it. Print publications have full dates for each release of the publication--though we shouldn't need to do that for our code. -- They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. But I'm not sure that we need to any automatic updates of source files that have not changed. Again, my experience is consistent with this observation. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? Thx. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
Yes, it's on my list. Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? Thx. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Building Java web applications with Struts. -- Tel +1 585 737-3463. -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On 1/9/02 12:53 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just asking what makes it a rule now On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done across all Apache projects? I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting You're going to end up getting pissed at your software anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid. I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just asking what makes it a rule now Anything that we decide to make a rule (hopefully little), anything that is part of Apaches culture/regulations/bylaws etc, anything required to protect Apache or committers or codebase (usually these are the legal uglies) am I missing anything ? On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done across all Apache projects? I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. It would probably be a good idea. You could post this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to proceed if you want. Theres also a lawyer on that list which will be able to make sure we are doing the right thing. -- Cheers, Pete ** | You can't wake a person who is pretending | | to be asleep. -Navajo Proverb. | ** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
Geir, I think the rule is so obvious once stated that no one is likely to disagree with it. In a perfect world, we would vote on such a rule in order to adopt it formally. However, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources and the Jakarta tradition of lazy approval seems to apply. Regards, Ceki At 20:24 09.01.2002 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On 1/9/02 12:53 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just asking what makes it a rule now On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done across all Apache projects? I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting You're going to end up getting pissed at your software anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On 1/9/02 8:30 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid. Of course. What I am asking is what makes it a Jakarta rule that the mentioned procedure is how it's supposed to work. See what I'm getting at? (I of course agree we have to do it) I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just asking what makes it a rule now Anything that we decide to make a rule (hopefully little), anything that is part of Apaches culture/regulations/bylaws etc, anything required to protect Apache or committers or codebase (usually these are the legal uglies) am I missing anything ? Seems so. Jon said put that rule in and I was wondering about the process of when we decided that specific thing was a rule. On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done across all Apache projects? I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. It would probably be a good idea. You could post this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to proceed if you want. Theres also a lawyer on that list which will be able to make sure we are doing the right thing. Good idea - I will do that. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting You're going to end up getting pissed at your software anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On 1/9/02 8:38 PM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir, I think the rule is so obvious once stated that no one is likely to disagree with it. In a perfect world, we would vote on such a rule in order to adopt it formally. However, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources and the Jakarta tradition of lazy approval seems to apply. Regards, Ceki This ties back to the thread earlier this week regarding the community not conforming to the rules we have. In this case, while indeed a sensible and required thing, it was a two message exchange on general@ that formed it into a rule. Then, it was going to be added to a page that many will probably not see. So what we've done is set things up for people to violate the 'rule' simply out of ignorance. Again, don't get me wrong - I agree 100% with the rule :) At 20:24 09.01.2002 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On 1/9/02 12:53 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just asking what makes it a rule now On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done across all Apache projects? I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting You're going to end up getting pissed at your software anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
Pete, Just a question. Maybe I missed this in the discussions. Every once and a while the short license versus big license discussion goes through here. Meaning the source code for some projects whether correctly or incorrectly be convention uses a statement and short reference to the license and others post the license in its entirety. Did anyone consult those licensing folks to check if there was a legal reasoning? While I have no particular passion on this and don't wish to see a war here, I do know some projects use one and others use another and I'm just curious if there are any legal problems that could result. (at POI we use the long form convention because it seems to be in line with where the discussion leaned on here and I'm a paranoid type person) Thanks, Andy -- www.superlinksoftware.com www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
I am not a lawyer and the following is yet another one of my heretical POVs. Legally speaking the copyright notice is not even required in each source file as long as the whole work can be unequivocally attributed to their rightful owners through other means. Example 1) In my home I don't have my name written on every item and piece of furniture. There is a littler sign on the door that says this is my home. It follows that everything contained therein is my property. Example 2) If you look inside any book, you are likely to find that there is only one copyright notice covering the whole book. You are very unlikely to find another copyright in no sentence, no paragraph, nor in any section not even in any chapter. You will find one copyright section inside the cover page. Copyright law applies the same way to software as to books. Tearing out a page from a book does not remove the copyright of the author even if there is no copyright notice on the torn out page. Think about it for a second. Why are putting copyright notices in every source code file? Because we can and it is admitted by industry practice, not because we have to. At 22:29 09.01.2002 -0500, Ted Husted wrote: At this time, the so-called short form should not be used. Although we are told that it is legally defensible. http://nagoya.apache.org:8080/jyve-faq/Turbine/screen/DisplayQuestionAnswer/action/SetAll/project_id/2/faq_id/38/topic_id/205/question_id/787 The ASF chair has made a posting to the Committers list regarding a new license, which will support a short form, but approval is still forthcoming. -Ted. Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Pete, Just a question. Maybe I missed this in the discussions. Every once and a while the short license versus big license discussion goes through here. Meaning the source code for some projects whether correctly or incorrectly be convention uses a statement and short reference to the license and others post the license in its entirety. Did anyone consult those licensing folks to check if there was a legal reasoning? While I have no particular passion on this and don't wish to see a war here, I do know some projects use one and others use another and I'm just curious if there are any legal problems that could result. (at POI we use the long form convention because it seems to be in line with where the discussion leaned on here and I'm a paranoid type person) Thanks, Andy -- www.superlinksoftware.com www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Building Java web applications with Struts. -- Tel +1 585 737-3463. -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:45, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On 1/9/02 8:30 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a file? It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid. Of course. What I am asking is what makes it a Jakarta rule that the mentioned procedure is how it's supposed to work. See what I'm getting at? not really sure what you mean. The one thing that the PMC is required to do is enforce all the legalities of stuff. This is legality thing that has to be done. The PMC has to enforce regardless or not it is in the rules for jakarta Jon said put that rule in and I was wondering about the process of when we decided that specific thing was a rule. I don't see it as an addition - merely documenting something that already is implictly a rule. I never knew about this sort of thing until about 9 months ago when a lawyer tried to explain it all to me (though failed at some parts cause I had no idea what he was talking about). Documenting it is good because then people who know not a lot about legalese and friends don't have to think ;) If it was an actualy change proposed it would have to go through the whole propose, bitchslap, whine, vote, propose, whine, bitchslap, vote until it got accepted (and ignored), agreed to or everyone thought the subjects was dull and stopped participating ;) -- Cheers, Pete --- Wise men don't need advice. Fools don't take it. -Benjamin Franklin --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License change for new year ?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:36, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Just a question. Maybe I missed this in the discussions. Every once and a while the short license versus big license discussion goes through here. Meaning the source code for some projects whether correctly or incorrectly be convention uses a statement and short reference to the license and others post the license in its entirety. Did anyone consult those licensing folks to check if there was a legal reasoning? While I have no particular passion on this and don't wish to see a war here, I do know some projects use one and others use another and I'm just curious if there are any legal problems that could result. (at POI we use the long form convention because it seems to be in line with where the discussion leaned on here and I'm a paranoid type person) Theres no legal reason for either case as long as they both are accurate and don't misrepresent the license. Some people froth at the mouth at one style or the other to an even greater degree than code standards so basically do what you are comfortable with. -- Cheers, Pete *-* * Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, * * and proving that there is no need to do so - almost * * everyone gets busy on the proof. * * - John Kenneth Galbraith * *-* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
License change for new year ?
I have 2 questions : 1/ Now that we are in 2002, do we need to change the text in all our license files to be : Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software Foundation instead of Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation ? 2/ Some license files only have Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation and some others have a year range as in Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation. Should one be preferred over the other ? Are they both valid ? Thanks -Vincent -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
