Hi Everyone, Have updated the code for License information.
Thanks, Astha On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Astha, > > Thanks for your reply, no hard feelings, we kind of suspected already that > that could've been the case :) > > If you could put a NOTICE in the project root with a 'Part of the code of > this project was based on Partuza (http://url , etc)' and restore the > Apache License files in the affected files & add a notice to the files that > are based on Partuza, that would be great, thanks. > > Also, when releasing a project under the Apache License, your advised to > put that license header @ the top of all your files, and a LICENSE file (or > NOTICE) containing the license info, for, well such situations really, that > you can prove that those files were covered by the license, see the link i > send in my initial reply for the exact details on how and what. > > Without such LICENSE file & headers in the files, no one could count on it > really being apache licensed, which makes it a lot harder for interested > people to depend on the fact that they can use the code. The apache.orgsite > is a great resources for info on this subject. > > Again, thanks for the reply & I look forward to our future conversations on > other topics :) > > -- Chris > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Astha Bhatnagar < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Chris, Guido and All, >> >> First of all let me acknowledge the mistake and ask for apologies. One of >> the engineers surely has taken a short cut. While that is something internal >> to what I need to look into, I assure you that it was not to my knowledge. >> It would have been foolish of me to do so publicly. >> >> I am not against derivative work, just that the goal was for a fresh >> initiative. Having said that let me assure you that we will update the >> license related text tomorrow our working day and make sure we stay >> compliant to what is necessary. >> >> Thank you for bringing this out, I would rather know it now than later. >> >> I am looking forward for more fruitful interactions and taking esprit on >> its way. >> >> best regards, >> Astha >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Guido Barosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> > >>> > Let me take this opportunity to clarify that esprit is not a derivative >>> work >>> > of partuza. Esprit has been written from scratch by our R&D team. :) We >>> have >>> > used only one javascript file which we are working on to license as per >>> the >>> > derivative work requirements. We ourselves are APL 2.0 >>> >>> Well, maybe your R&D team (or one of the guys) took some code without >>> mentioning? Ashta, what Chris said is definitely true and correct. >>> Furthermore, the fact that many of your php pieces do not include a >>> License triggers my attention. >>> >>> Anyway, this is good news and for sure we are all happy! >>> >>> BTW, is there something that Esprit already complies and Partuza does >>> not? >>> >>> gb.- >>> >>> PS Chris: The "uglaaaaaayyyy" worked betta' than an md5 of your own >>> source! ;-) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Guido Barosio >>> ----------------------- >>> http://www.globant.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> >
