Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 another 'feeding the trolls' thread over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I now see that my remark has been duly noted, and I can only hope that it somehow penetrates the firewall between us and The Members. 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 listening, understanding and persuasion, exactly the same way a a committed committer would. Send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see how you are received. Note the CC: to licensing@. /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 listening, understanding and persuasion, exactly the same way a a committed committer would. - thanks for the pointer, I already tried subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which obviously was the wrong address - subscribing/posting: from what I see, it looks like my subscription is waiting to be moderated - excellent - things being 'easier' when being a member: of course not, and I hope that wasn't the impression that I gave Send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see how you are received. Note the CC: to licensing@. Thanks for the invitation - I'll post my questions to the licensing list. /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 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 even more positive karma in slashdot. From the Foundations perspective membership also entails responsibilities and obligations but that's a different topic. /Steven -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 even more positive karma in slashdot. From the Foundations perspective membership also entails responsibilities and obligations but that's a different topic. In people's mind is where thoughts come to fruition and actions are decided. It's just that I don't like it when a discussion gets cut off by someone using that imaginary firewall as a reason - even adding a redirect to some other place where it is deemed more appropriate for the discussion to be held. Oh well ;) /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
- 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 recognition of one's work plus a stamp of approval for being usually reasonable. Think of membership as even more positive karma in slashdot. From the Foundations perspective membership also entails responsibilities and obligations but that's a different topic. It is a real barrier in that things seem less opaque for members. You can tell people that nothing important happens on the members only lists, but as long as there _are_ members only lists and such, the firewall will always be percieved. -- jt, observing not complaining. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 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 even more positive karma in slashdot. From the Foundations perspective membership also entails responsibilities and obligations but that's a different topic. It is a real barrier in that things seem less opaque for members. You can tell people that nothing important happens on the members only lists, but as long as there _are_ members only lists and such, the firewall will always be percieved. Many things remain opaque for members because new members do not suddenly become omniscient. The phenomena of community legends exists within Apache as within any community with some history. What sets Apache apart from other communities is its built in open and tolerant nature. Openness is a hard term to define. IMO, the ability to speak up and argue on almost any matter without fear of retribution makes Apache open. You will not find a single member claiming that important business is conducted on the members list. The argument of members only mailing lists preventing committers from gaining access to important information does not hold water unless one assumes that all ASF members are irredeemable liars united in a conspiracy against the poor committers. Some say that perception is everything. If perception is everything, then reason and truth do not matter. As far as I am concerned, reason and truth are everything with perception a distant contender. After all, we all perceive the earth to be flat which does not make the earth any less spherical. What is great about Apache is that a good argument and some perseverance will get you a long way. That is a fact. Status matters but less than one would imagine. My disappointment with Apache was that occasionally you get a very persistent person who convincingly promotes bad ideas. Although some may see that and not agree, they eventually throw in the towel. It then takes the community months or even years to realize that the idea was bad. Of course, the problem does stem from the open nature of the ASF but rather from the imperfections of *any* conceivable system. The bottom line is that we should not mistake the failings of the system with our own PGL syndrome (paranoia, greed and laziness). -- jt, observing not complaining. -- Ceki, expounding not accusing. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 mailing list? I believe it was avaliable _only_ to ASF members... Which is kinda strange since it is the license which _committers_ also need to abide... You're free to file your complaint to the appropriate department dealing with those kinds of issues: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I now see that my remark has been duly noted, and I can only hope that it somehow penetrates the firewall between us and The Members. /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 members... Which is kinda strange since it is the license which _committers_ also need to abide... /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Short Apache licence for source files
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 long form of the ASF 1.1 license in every source file checked in to Apache CV repositories. It doesn't matter whether it's legally required (to get around the this software interpretation) or not. It matters that the ASF Board (representing the foudnation, which is the owner of all this code) told us to do it that way. That's all the reason any of us should need. 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? Craig McClanahan -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 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. The ASF is very much centered around an open and pragmatic license. If you want to weaken this a bit in the name of saving a few bytes, the ASF is not going to falter and fold. At the moment, this may be the closest thing to a sanction you may get. If a better one becomes available, I'll be sure to forward it on. Peace. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 dedicated to that purpose. Where is that mailing list? I believe it was avaliable _only_ to ASF members... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 it came with at least a hint for the reasons behind the policy. Until very recently, I could not find any explanation for the reasons behind the policy beyond *someone* on the board said so, now please go away. Moreover, when we submitted this question to the board the answer was far from clear-cut, although that may be due to a misunderstanding on my part. The ASF is very much centered around an open and pragmatic license. If you want to weaken this a bit in the name of saving a few bytes, the ASF is not going to falter and fold. 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. Is that too much to ask for? By the way, I am not seeking a sanction. I am trying to understand. At the moment, this may be the closest thing to a sanction you may get. If a better one becomes available, I'll be sure to forward it on. You know where to reach me. Peace. Acked and mirrored. - Sam Ruby -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Short Apache licence for source files
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 more than a little upsetting. The board may not have any legal obligation to us committers who assign our code to the foundation, but courtesy demands some explanation for their actions and decisions. Sure, the decision is the final word, but for us to be able to ask why? is vital to maintaining the trust/comfort relationship between the authors of the code and the owner. -- jt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 form. It may be slightly better to include the whole license in certain obscure circumstances but that does mean that the reference to the license (a.k.a. the short form) is useless and that it should be disallowed. Here is what Roy Fielding had to say on the subject. I am quoting without explicit permission hoping that he will not mind. :-( quote and inclusion by reference isn't suddenly becoming official with the 2.0 licence; until we hear counsel that says its safe, we most likely won't permit it regardless of the size of the licence text. WTF? Of course it is safe, and we've already had several lawyers review it, not to mention ample evidence from the MPL and GPL that other lawyers believe it is safe with the proper reference text. The proposed 2.0 license text was specifically written to support inclusion by reference. The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the scope of what was covered beyond this file. As such, the board has not approved its use by reference for our own products. Even so, it is still safe (albeit confusing) to use it by reference provided that the file starts with a proper copyright line and All rights reserved. After all, our license simply spells out the conditions under which we reduce our own rights -- it doesn't matter whether or not the user can see the full agreement because without the agreement they cannot legally copy the file at all. Roy /quote 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 copyright law apply to anything beyond the file? Anyway, in the last paragraph Roy makes it clear that without the licence the software cannot be legally copied. Thus, asserting the Apache copyright in each file and referencing the Apache Software License should be sufficient to protect our copyright. What am I missing? Was there ever a closure to this question? At 08:48 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote: 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 version is not acceptable IIRC. License 2.0 is supposed to help. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 a reference to the license? The whole world does it. Why shouldn't we? -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the scope of what was covered beyond this file. As such, the board has not approved its use by reference for our own products. I think, the last sentence is why we should stick to the full license text until using some short form is OK with License 2.0. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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. Why? What is wrong with a copyright notice followed by a reference to the license? The whole world does it. Why shouldn't we? As was said : it is simply not allowed by the board. Mvgr, Martin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 prohibition either. 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 a few weeks ago. I did not see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a position on this, or until there is an official document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 copyright law apply to anything beyond the file? Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), but: If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says _this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which referes to the file. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 there is no explicit prohibition either. You mean that everything can be done if it's not prohibited explicitly? Come on, what's this, a policed community? 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 a few weeks ago. I did not see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a position on this, or until there is an official document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations. My words: Currently we should use the full version. To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short license is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a request for clarification to the board too. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 use a reference to the license although there is no explicit prohibition either. You mean that everything can be done if it's not prohibited explicitly? Come on, what's this, a policed community? 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 bad citizen. 2) One should be respectful of others. Being disrespectful or violent makes you a bad citizen. In 1) SHOULD is a recommendation whereas in 2) SHOULD really means MUST. Thus, in the sentence, we should use include the license in each file, does SHOULD mean MUST or is it just a recommendation? 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 a few weeks ago. I did not see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a position on this, or until there is an official document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations. My words: Currently we should use the full version. Should or must? :-) To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short license is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a request for clarification to the board too. The license (version 1.1) is 41 lines long whereas the copyright notice plus the reference to the license is just 7 lines. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 a few weeks ago. I did not see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a position on this, or until there is an official document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations. My words: Currently we should use the full version. Should or must? :-) Let your yes be yes, no be no Should means should. To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short license is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a request for clarification to the board too. The license (version 1.1) is 41 lines long whereas the copyright notice plus the reference to the license is just 7 lines. I am 1.68 meters (28 years old) while my sister is 1.57 (22 years old). -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 bad citizen. 2) One should be respectful of others. Being disrespectful or violent makes you a bad citizen. In 1) SHOULD is a recommendation whereas in 2) SHOULD really means MUST. Thus, in the sentence, we should use include the license in each file, does SHOULD mean MUST or is it just a recommendation? 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 a few weeks ago. I did not see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a position on this, or until there is an official document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations. My words: Currently we should use the full version. Should or must? :-) taken from the license: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. _must_ martin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 the written expression of the software developer. How can copyright law apply to anything beyond the file? Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), but: If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says _this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which referes to the file. IANAL either. My understanding matches Stefan's above. If you include the current license by reference, the ASF appears to be well protected, but you may not be achieving what you want. People who make use of the code you produce may some day be surprised to find that the only thing they actually have permission to make use of is the LICENSE FILE itself, subject of course to the terms contained therein. OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to this software not to any specific file. I think we all agree that referring to the license means that the terms of the license apply, at least that is the intention. There are three possible cases. 1) Bad faith interpretation Someone decides that the license applies to the license file itself and not to other files. If the license does not apply, then that someone does not have the legal right to copy our software. I think this is the case Roy was referring to in his comments -- the comments I forwarded earlier without permission. 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 address this concern in the license FAQ? 3) Intended interpretation The Apache license applies even by reference as intended. No problems there. The next license is intended to fix this. Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen? - Sam Ruby -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 address this concern in the license FAQ? I happen to work for a large corporation which has an annoying tendency to err towards the cautious side when making such interpretations. Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen? Judgement calls like this are always relative. It certainly is possible that someone caught in a situation where they are required to make a cautious interpretation might feel less than charitably inclined towards the citizens who made choices against the recommended practices of their community, particularly when they find such choices making their life more difficult. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Short Apache licence for source files
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 piece of work to which it applies. Thus when Roy said: 'The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the scope of what was covered beyond this file.' It means just that - the 1.1 license doesn't define what it applies to. It refers vaguely to THIS SOFTWARE, but that's all. The concern is that if it is not directly included within the source files then the scope of THIS SOFTWARE is unclear. Does it include all the source? What about the included jars? What if those jars are not under the ASF license? This not the case in the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) because Term 0 of the GPL defines (ot attempts to define) the scope of the work. My understanding is that License 2.0 will include a similar item (but I'm basing that on guesswork). While it should be clear to normal people what this software means, lawyers have a nasty habit of not seeing the obvious :) NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright material of Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Bank does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Bank. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Short Apache licence for source files
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 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 piece of work to which it applies. Thus when Roy said: 'The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the scope of what was covered beyond this file.' It means just that - the 1.1 license doesn't define what it applies to. It refers vaguely to THIS SOFTWARE, but that's all. The concern is that if it is not directly included within the source files then the scope of THIS SOFTWARE is unclear. Does it include all the source? What about the included jars? What if those jars are not under the ASF license? This not the case in the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) because Term 0 of the GPL defines (ot attempts to define) the scope of the work. My understanding is that License 2.0 will include a similar item (but I'm basing that on guesswork). 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. 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 long form of the ASF 1.1 license in every source file checked in to Apache CV repositories. It doesn't matter whether it's legally required (to get around the this software interpretation) or not. It matters that the ASF Board (representing the foudnation, which is the owner of all this code) told us to do it that way. That's all the reason any of us should need. While it should be clear to normal people what this software means, lawyers have a nasty habit of not seeing the obvious :) Craig McClanahan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Short Apache licence for source files
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 additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 source files? Most source files in James use the following: /* * Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. * * This software is published under the terms of the Apache Software License * version 1.1, a copy of which has been included with this distribution in * the LICENSE file. */ 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. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 software is published under the terms of the Apache Software License * version 1.1, a copy of which has been included with this distribution in * the LICENSE file. */ 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. 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. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
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 version is not acceptable IIRC. License 2.0 is supposed to help. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
