Given that for works published after March 1, 1989 it is not even
necessary to place a copyright notice to benefit from copyright law
protection, I do not see why the long form is absolutely
necessary. Moreover, the next version of the Apache Software License
will specifically allow the short
At 07:54 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Currently we should use the full version.
There will be a short version of the next 2.0 license that will be equally
protecting from a legal POV, but in the meantime use the full version.
Why? What is wrong with a copyright notice followed by
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Ceki Gülc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What am I missing?
Not sure whether you are missing anything at all. I don't understand
the US copyright law that well (I could tell you a lot about the
German law, but still IANAL). But from you quoting Roy:
The problem with the
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 09:59, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 07:54 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Currently we should use the full version.
There will be a short version of the next 2.0 license that will be equally
protecting from a legal POV, but in the meantime use the full version.
I know some people that are big fans of TestMaker and would love to see it at
Apache. The problem is that Testmaker does not fit our requirements for a
community. In the end it doesn't matter about the quality of the code, the
number of users, downloads etc unless you do have a viable
Don't suppose you'd consider putting a link to XMLUnit
http://xmlunit.sf.net/ in the Jelly section. It's always good to try a
bit of shameless publicity seeking ;-)
--
Jeff Martin
Memetic Engineer
http://www.custommonkey.org/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, || board members have said to use the full version
till version 2.0 arrives.
Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to use a reference to
the license although there is no explicit
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I do not understand what Roy means by the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file' Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, || board members have said to use the full
version till version 2.0 arrives.
Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to use a reference to
the license although
At 12:13 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, || board members have said to use the full
version till version 2.0 arrives.
Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 12:13 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[..]
You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go
ask directly and eventually report back.
Michael A. Smith actually went to the board
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I was trying to convey that the word should has different meanings. It
can be interpreted as a recommendation or alternatively as an
obligation. For example,
1) One should brush one's teeth. Otherwise, you'll get bad
teeth. However, not brushing your teeth does not make you a
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Should or must? :-)
Let your yes be yes, no be no
Should means should.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
/Steven
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog
At 07:31 04.12.2002 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
Stefan Mainz wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I do not understand what Roy means by the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file' Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is
From: Jeff Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't suppose you'd consider putting a link to XMLUnit
http://xmlunit.sf.net/ in the Jelly section. It's always good to try a
bit of shameless publicity seeking ;-)
Its pretty well hidden, but there is a link in the Jelly tag reference...
Ceki Gülcü 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
http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity
-Andy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave's da man...
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:20 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity
-Andy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir
Thanks for pointing out the Incubator. It looks like a fine way to get
started. I will follow-up with the Incubator process later this month when
things quiet down for the holidays.
Your viable community comment has me puzzled. Would you please explain
your thoughts on the makings of a viable
Your viable community comment has me puzzled. Would you please explain
your thoughts on the makings of a viable Apache community? I'm very
flexible and creative. Your comments might show me a better way of running
this project.
Essentially it comes down to having a larger more diverse
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to
this software not to any specific file.
IANAL, IAN-Roy, IAN-ASF, but...
The license does not give any indication of what this software is.
i.e. It doesn't define the scope of the
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:12:37 +1100
From: Tim Vernum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Jakarta General List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Short Apache licence for source files
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL
on 2002/12/4 9:20 AM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity
-Andy
Wow. Java Server Faces really sucks ass. Much more than I could have ever
imagined. No wonder I didn't bother looking at it before. What a confusing,
over
on 2002/12/4 11:30 AM, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this fuss is about 34 lines of text? I don't get it. Why not just use
the full license and forget about whether or not the short form is OK?
--
Martin Cooper
+1
-jon
--
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314
While I haven't looked at Faces yet, this seems to be a not uncommmon trend
at Sun. Look at the logging API in Java 1.4. Why? log4j is better, pretty
much a defacto standard, and freely available under a license that nobody
can complain about. It is sad that they felt they had to put logging
Great guest editorial article (no web link yet it seems) in the November
Java Developers Journal that I suggest you read.
It briefly outlines how the JCP is screwing up the way that Sun manages
Java.
-jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Thanks Jon. Here's the link.
http://www.sys-con.com/java/article.cfm?id=1714
Its an okay article. Could be a bit more in-depth I suppose, but I
imagine all the people
who could write that are under gag order.
And if you're really depressed... Here's a quick how to for doing
C#/Mono by
While I agree with everyhting you're saing. I read that over twice and
I'm like Why?
I mean why? So lets say for a moment you're one of the new breed whom
use that
epitomy of object orientation better known as Java Server Pages. Well
really, what does
this Java Server Faces add over Struts?
on 2002/12/4 5:57 PM, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Java Communist Party
LOL!
-jon
--
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
The structure of the JCP is the same as the structure of your average
communist party, at least as I undestand it.
You have the party loyal whom run divied up industries (which can't be
called industrialists), you have a strongman (Sun).
Occasionally, this is a bid feudal with a rebelling
Any time man. Any time.
Scott Sanders wrote:
The structure of the JCP is the same as the structure of your average
communist party, at least as I undestand it.
You have the party loyal whom run divied up industries (which
can't be
called industrialists), you have a strongman (Sun).
Current drafts of the 2.0 license include a solution to this
issue, plus a whole bunch of other niceties. Discussions of
the new license are happening on a mailing list dedicated to
that purpose.
Where is that mailing list?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Re: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10390294901r=1w=2
| Where are we the working class who makes it work in this process? Pawns
| in the game.
|
| -Andy
It may be motivating to remember that blog (from the colonies) is a candidate for the
empire's OED:
33 matches
Mail list logo
