Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 20:27 07.12.2002 +0100, you wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: You're free to file your complaint to the appropriate department dealing with those kinds of issues: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Naaah. There's a difference between making a remark here when the opportunity is there, and starting

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Steven Noels
Ceki Gülcü wrote: I think the tradition of meritocracy is deeply rooted in our collective consciousness; I mean that of Apache. If you knock on the door of [EMAIL PROTECTED], I am sure you will be allowed in. Things do not necessarily become easier as a member, one still has to work on

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 12:23 09.12.2002 +0100, Steven Noels wrote: Ceki Gülcü wrote: - things being 'easier' when being a member: of course not, and I hope that wasn't the impression that I gave The message I was trying to get across was that the firewall a.k.a. barrier between members and committers exists

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Steven Noels
Ceki Gülcü wrote: The message I was trying to get across was that the firewall a.k.a. barrier between members and committers exists mostly in people's minds. Membership is not much more than a recognition of one's work plus a stamp of approval for being usually reasonable. Think of membership as

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread James Taylor
- things being 'easier' when being a member: of course not, and I hope that wasn't the impression that I gave The message I was trying to get across was that the firewall a.k.a. barrier between members and committers exists mostly in people's minds. Membership is not much more than a

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 07:40 09.12.2002 -0500, James Taylor wrote: - things being 'easier' when being a member: of course not, and I hope that wasn't the impression that I gave The message I was trying to get across was that the firewall a.k.a. barrier between members and committers exists mostly in people's

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-09 Thread Steven Noels
Ceki Gülcü wrote: snip/ -- Ceki, expounding not accusing. Very nicely put. /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-07 Thread Steven Noels
Ceki Gülcü wrote: I never expected the ASF to falter and fold. However, I do expect the ASF to act reasonably which implies that it can explain/document its decisions. Feeling very patronized if I see such threads...: +1 /Steven -- Steven Noels

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-07 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 7/12/02 7:56 Steven Noels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: 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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-07 Thread Steven Noels
Pier Fumagalli wrote: You're free to file your complaint to the appropriate department dealing with those kinds of issues: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Naaah. There's a difference between making a remark here when the opportunity is there, and starting another 'feeding the trolls' thread over at

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-06 Thread Steven Noels
Pier Fumagalli wrote: 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? I believe it was avaliable _only_ to ASF

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-05 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 16:14 04.12.2002 -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: In the mean time, I believe all Apache projects should treat the Board member comments quoted above and elsewhere in this thread (and taken out of much larger discussions) as authoritative direction to ASF committers that we should use the

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-05 Thread Sam Ruby
Ceki Gülcü wrote: I thought that we were also supposed and even encouraged to think for ourselves. No one has suggested to defy the board. I resent the shut- -up-and-do-as-you-are-told attitude which does not characterize you, the ASF, nor anyone on the board. What is going on here? Would a

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-05 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 5/12/02 4:04 am, in article 003b01c29c13$6dd962b0$927ba8c0@ROSENGARDEN, Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-05 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 05:52 05.12.2002 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote: Ceki Gülcü wrote: Would a shut-up-and-think-for-yourself be any better? It seems to me that you are seeking an explicit sanction for the practice of using the current license by reference. Yes, shut-up-and-think-for-yourself would be better assuming

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-05 Thread James Taylor
I thought that we were also supposed and even encouraged to think for ourselves. No one has suggested to defy the board. I resent the shut- -up-and-do-as-you-are-told attitude which does not characterize you, the ASF, nor anyone on the board. What is going on here? Indeed, this attitude is

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Ceki Gülcü
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Ceki Gülcü
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Stefan Bodewig
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Martin van den Bemt
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.

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Ceki Gülcü
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Stefan Mainz
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Ceki Gülcü
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Martin Poeschl
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Steven Noels
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Ceki Gülcü
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Sam Ruby
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

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Tim Vernum
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

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
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

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Jon Scott Stevens
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

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-04 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-03 Thread Jeffrey Dever
Interesting. All the HttpClient files have the full form. It would be nice to simply refrence the actual license file, if this is acceptable. Darrell DeBoer wrote: G'day, I know this has been discussed before, but has any progress been made on a short version of the Apache licence for

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-03 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Darrell DeBoer wrote: G'day, I know this has been discussed before, but has any progress been made on a short version of the Apache licence for source files? Most source files in James use the following: /* * Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. * * This

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

2002-12-03 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Darrell DeBoer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know where it started, but if someone can someone tell me definitively that this is against ASF rules, I will move to rectify the situation. Roy Fielding and several other board members have repeatedly stated that the short