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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo