Re: Long licence
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Check: Is every FOP committer (especially the Europe-based ones) on the party list??? I hope so. :-) No. But I'm in London for the XML/WebServices in two weeks. A few Cocooners have already signed on. Anybody else there? J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
On 25.02.2003 18:11:29 Christian Geisert wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Maintenance branch is changed to full licence. I feel dizzy now. :-) > > A big thank you for doing this! > (If I make it to Hannover I'll pay you a beer ;-) Can we make that a Coke? Would be great to see you there. I want to be sure to have a few familiar names around me so it's really worth going. Getting accommodation is difficult enough during CeBIT. Check: Is every FOP committer (especially the Europe-based ones) on the party list??? I hope so. :-) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Maintenance branch is changed to full licence. I feel dizzy now. :-) A big thank you for doing this! (If I make it to Hannover I'll pay you a beer ;-) Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Maintenance branch is changed to full licence. I feel dizzy now. :-) On 20.02.2003 07:46:25 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > That's it. The board has finally spoken. We need to change to long > licences in our codebase. Anyone out there with free time? If not, I can > do it. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Long licence
> -Original Message- > From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: February 21, 2003 1:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Long licence > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > > I'd like to find out what lawyer thought a long license is > needed with every > > file. Because I question that finding. > > Question the board@ (again) for a black/white answer - or work with > licensing@ for a more interactive reply. Point taken. I get too much email already, so I've been averse to joining more lists. Maybe in this case I should join another. > But Bear in mind that the current 'license' is more than just strictly a > license; it contains elements of copyright, waiver and an agreement. Understood. > Bear in mind that the answer to vague questions like that carry very > significant price tags; and are very depended on the exact question; which > itself by its very nature is inexact. Yes. It's our business to pose the exact questions. It's the business of the lawyer to supply an answer. FWIW, I am not vilifying lawyers. My older sister is one. :-) I feel like the right questions weren't asked. > Also bear in mind that there are very, very few layers who actually have > studied open-source licenses in sufficient dept; and that most answers > from case-law are about proprietary and protectionist stances; and often > very US specific; and may be very dated. Yes, I agree. > Also bear in mind that the answer differs from jurisdiction to > jurisdiction; and from how litagationous/defensive the side you want to > err on is. Well, I differ from our US friends on this. I prefer to be terse and clear, and maintain some trust in people. > Finally bear in mind that the board propably does not want to ask > expensive questions now with respect to the current license; as the new > license is not far off - and the new license has taken into account this > desire to include by reference. OK, fair enough. I'll wait to see it. Arved - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Long licence
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > I'd like to find out what lawyer thought a long license is needed with every > file. Because I question that finding. Question the board@ (again) for a black/white answer - or work with licensing@ for a more interactive reply. But Bear in mind that the current 'license' is more than just strictly a license; it contains elements of copyright, waiver and an agreement. Bear in mind that the answer to vague questions like that carry very significant price tags; and are very depended on the exact question; which itself by its very nature is inexact. Also bear in mind that there are very, very few layers who actually have studied open-source licenses in sufficient dept; and that most answers from case-law are about proprietary and protectionist stances; and often very US specific; and may be very dated. Also bear in mind that the answer differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; and from how litagationous/defensive the side you want to err on is. Finally bear in mind that the board propably does not want to ask expensive questions now with respect to the current license; as the new license is not far off - and the new license has taken into account this desire to include by reference. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Long licence
Jeremias, a deliberate decision was taken to frown on condensed licenses or references. That tell me that there is a legal requirement for the license to be "in your face". So to speak. In any case, the board was presented (I assume) with a legal opinion to that effect. Which, although IANAL, I dispute. If it so happens that I am wrong (it's been known; I was last wrong on October 14th, 1995), I am sure that someone will so inform me. But I am checking with some local IP lawyers to see what the deal is. My point being that legally there is no distinction between developers working with OSS, and any other users. And in fact the distinction ought not be made, as many of the same developers _are_ users of the codebase. So it is OK to hide the licensing? I think not. I dislike a long boilerplate license. There are two ways to get rid of it - one is to use technological techniques to ignore it. I don't like that. FOP for example has many hundreds of source files...tack in a screen of legal stuff with each one and note that people with dialup just got presented with some extra download time. Significant extra download time. I intend to clarify this issue on the ASF members list. I have problems with this decision. Arved > -Original Message- > From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: February 21, 2003 9:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Long licence > > > Arved, > > I don't see what's bad about it. The licence stays in every file as > necessary, the IDE should just as a service to the developer hide the > licence because it's not relevant to normal development tasks. > > On 21.02.2003 14:01:34 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > I find it odd that it's OK to suggest tools (IDEs/editors, etc) > to hide a > > license. When the argument presented to the board was > presumably that the > > long license is legally required. > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Arved, I don't see what's bad about it. The licence stays in every file as necessary, the IDE should just as a service to the developer hide the licence because it's not relevant to normal development tasks. On 21.02.2003 14:01:34 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > I find it odd that it's OK to suggest tools (IDEs/editors, etc) to hide a > license. When the argument presented to the board was presumably that the > long license is legally required. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Long licence
Dirk, you may have seen my post on members, about this. The whole length of license issue. I find it odd that it's OK to suggest tools (IDEs/editors, etc) to hide a license. When the argument presented to the board was presumably that the long license is legally required. I'd like to find out what lawyer thought a long license is needed with every file. Because I question that finding. Arved > -Original Message- > From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: February 21, 2003 8:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Long licence > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > software developers. :-) It would be so cool, if IDEs would have the > > ability to hide a licence at the beginning of a file. > > I;ve seen some clever pragma's/markers which let emacs do this. > > DW - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > software developers. :-) It would be so cool, if IDEs would have the > ability to hide a licence at the beginning of a file. I;ve seen some clever pragma's/markers which let emacs do this. DW - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
I know. Everyone here at Apache feels the same but AFAIK this is not possible. In today's world lawyers still seem to be more important than software developers. :-) It would be so cool, if IDEs would have the ability to hide a licence at the beginning of a file. Anyway, I can't give you a definitive answer. I'd ask on community@. Thanks for your help changing the licences. On 21.02.2003 06:07:32 Peter B. West wrote: > Can we put the copyright notice at the end of the files? It's a PITA > haaving it at the beginning. I'll change the FOP_0-20-0_Alt-Design files. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Jeremias, Can we put the copyright notice at the end of the files? It's a PITA haaving it at the beginning. I'll change the FOP_0-20-0_Alt-Design files. Peter Jeremias Maerki wrote: Thanks, your help is most welcome. Yes, we have to change all three :-) codebases. On 20.02.2003 08:33:31 Oleg Tkachenko wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: That's it. The board has finally spoken. We need to change to long licences in our codebase. Anyone out there with free time? If not, I can do it. I can help you. Should we change both codebases? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ "Lord, to whom shall we go?" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Thanks, your help is most welcome. Yes, we have to change all three :-) codebases. On 20.02.2003 08:33:31 Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > That's it. The board has finally spoken. We need to change to long > > licences in our codebase. Anyone out there with free time? If not, I can > > do it. > I can help you. Should we change both codebases? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long licence
Jeremias Maerki wrote: That's it. The board has finally spoken. We need to change to long licences in our codebase. Anyone out there with free time? If not, I can do it. I can help you. Should we change both codebases? -- Oleg Tkachenko Multiconn Technologies, Israel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
