Re: Licence in build.*
Please Add ! And thanks for noticing this. Dw On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Peter B. West wrote: I have just noticed that there is no licence in build.xml, build.bat or build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we have a dispensation? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
This may need more work before proceeding---I've looked at Xalan, Cocoon, Axis--none of them are licensing their shell scripts and batch files--nor their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an oversight with us--so it is with everyone. Two (Xalan and Axis) do have a copyright statement on their Ant build.xml; however, that's not the Apache license but a standard copyright notice that would appear to prevent users from modifying them--I don't think this is what is wanted either. We probably need Apache-wide direction on this, and FOP should follow what is done by the more established projects such as Xalan, Struts, etc. If FOP is to actually move our, say, 3 and 5 line shell scripts to 54 and 56 lines, respectively, *all* the projects should be doing this--not just those who ask about it. Another issue--perhaps the Apache license will need to be reformatted into official versions that will work with DOS batch scripts, Unix Shell scripts, to-do list text files and XML documents, because the current license appears designed for Java/C++ source only. (OTOH, such versions may already exist--I don't know.) Glen --- Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please Add ! And thanks for noticing this. Dw On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Peter B. West wrote: I have just noticed that there is no licence in build.xml, build.bat or build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we have a dispensation? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an oversight with us--so it is with everyone. Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect. Just to be clear; until we have the new license completed (any time now) each and every file which the committer communit would consider its work or its creation should have the ASF license and (c) right. Ideally each year in which active work was done on that file should be listed in the (c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a substansive change every 6 years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on this year after being stable for 4 years. Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of explicit license in each and every file will in some cases be condensed to just a URL reference. Guidelines for this will be released around that time. In any case, each file will still need the (c) right claim, and in this case the URL. Note that in some cases it may be desireable to have the license at the end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or it must be reformatted, have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into UTF8 or have different line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just to make sure that no one can claim that they did not see an ASF license when they snarfed or copied just a few files. Should you worry about size increase; feel free to do a small experiment; zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license. As you may see it compresses very very well. Thanks! Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
Wow, mails like this make me find new hope. Maybe I should resume my crusade to improve licensing policies at Apache and clarify open questions. http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing updated with this new piece of information (copyright years, which was an open question there). On 06.07.2003 17:45:13 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an oversight with us--so it is with everyone. Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect. Just to be clear; until we have the new license completed (any time now) each and every file which the committer communit would consider its work or its creation should have the ASF license and (c) right. Ideally each year in which active work was done on that file should be listed in the (c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a substansive change every 6 years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on this year after being stable for 4 years. Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of explicit license in each and every file will in some cases be condensed to just a URL reference. Guidelines for this will be released around that time. In any case, each file will still need the (c) right claim, and in this case the URL. Note that in some cases it may be desireable to have the license at the end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or it must be reformatted, have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into UTF8 or have different line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just to make sure that no one can claim that they did not see an ASF license when they snarfed or copied just a few files. Should you worry about size increase; feel free to do a small experiment; zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license. As you may see it compresses very very well. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
Also references on that Wiki page to source code files and files part of a project's codebase [i.e., those that need the license] should be further clarified to be any file checked into CVS for a project. Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, mails like this make me find new hope. Maybe I should resume my crusade to improve licensing policies at Apache and clarify open questions. http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing updated with this new piece of information (copyright years, which was an open question there). On 06.07.2003 17:45:13 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an oversight with us--so it is with everyone. Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect. Just to be clear; until we have the new license completed (any time now) each and every file which the committer communit would consider its work or its creation should have the ASF license and (c) right. Ideally each year in which active work was done on that file should be listed in the (c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a substansive change every 6 years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on this year after being stable for 4 years. Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of explicit license in each and every file will in some cases be condensed to just a URL reference. Guidelines for this will be released around that time. In any case, each file will still need the (c) right claim, and in this case the URL. Note that in some cases it may be desireable to have the license at the end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or it must be reformatted, have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into UTF8 or have different line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just to make sure that no one can claim that they did not see an ASF license when they snarfed or copied just a few files. Should you worry about size increase; feel free to do a small experiment; zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license. As you may see it compresses very very well. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: clarified to be any file checked into CVS for a project. Well - at the very least it is more each and every 'granule' which the committer community (i.e the developers) would consider its work or its creation. So at the same time one has some leeway to ignore a file which has no real content; say a 'runme.sh' file which only has the text 'java -cp foo.jar foo.Main' or something. But the same time the ASF as a whole should make sure that every 'bit' for which it can be held accountable is under a proper license (its own license or that of a third party we consider acceptible). So it is a puzzle from both directions. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
Oh, good--we're in agreement here. (Usually not good for one to argue too much with the President, non-profit or not ;) Glen --- Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: clarified to be any file checked into CVS for a project. Well - at the very least it is more each and every 'granule' which the committer community (i.e the developers) would consider its work or its creation. So at the same time one has some leeway to ignore a file which has no real content; say a 'runme.sh' file which only has the text 'java -cp foo.jar foo.Main' or something. But the same time the ASF as a whole should make sure that every 'bit' for which it can be held accountable is under a proper license (its own license or that of a third party we consider acceptible). So it is a puzzle from both directions. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence in build.*
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote: Oh, good--we're in agreement here. (Usually not good for one to argue too much with the President, non-profit or not ;) You are safer off ignoring that silly hat of mine altogether most of the time - and consider me just one of your peers (though perhaps more obnoxious than most); until such moment I am actually wearing the hat explictly. The latter is generally signaled by a different 'From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and a clear .signature at the bottom :-) But seriously - if you want the authoritative board@ answer on anything _SPECIFIC_, checked with our tamed legal experts, then do let me/board@ know. The tigher the question, the quicker/better the answer. But given the particulars in this case - I thoughd we'd be better off with an answer about the general principles. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
