You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org> on 2005/01/21 01:50:17 UTC
[digester][VOTE] Remove licence text from javadoc
Hi,
In August 2004, the build.xml file was modified so that when generating
Javadoc a copy of the apache licence was inserted as an xml comment into
the footer of generated pages.
Unforunately, this has caused complications, because javadoc appears to
have cross-platform issues with the quote marks in the text; on
MS-Windows, the quotes need to be escaped or a javadoc error is
reported, but if they are escaped then the escape marks get copied
verbatim to the output under Linux.
In addition, this change makes the build.xml file a bit clumsy; the
license is quite a lot of text to fit into an xml attribute!
Yes, it would be possible to have separate footer text for windows vs
linux, but that would make build.xml even uglier.
The licence text seemed unnecessary to me, as:
* Javadoc is not useful as a "stand-alone" product;
* Javadoc is generated from source files which *do* have complete
license text within them; and
* the output documents an API, with APIs not being copyrightable
I posted a question to legal-discuss@apache.org re this, and got this
reply:
=====
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 07:58 -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > Interesting question. First, a perspective point. The copyright notice in
> > the file is primarily for Apache's benefit. It puts people on notice that
> > Apache claims copyright on the material.
>
> Well, first, it really should be:
>
> Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as
> applicable.
[snip]
>
> > On the other hand, the license (though it does have some benefit to Apache)
> > is primarily for the user's benefit. Without it, the user has no license
> > at all.
> >
> > So, is the user put at a disadvantage in any way because the license isn't
> > embedded in the JavaDoc? Wouldn't anyone who understands how JavaDoc works
> > know exactly how to find out what license is available for that material?
>
> My sense is that this is splitting hairs a bit and that the full license,
> or even the reference to it, doesn't need to be included in the javadoc
> output - just as we don't embed it as a string in compiled code when we
> distribute binaries.
=====
So in summary:
I propose that the build.xml footer text be modified to contain:
Copyright 2001-2004 The Apache Software Foundation
or its licensors, as applicable.
And that the licence text be removed.
You can see the entire thread at:
http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200501.mbox/index.html
with subject: "Licence required in Javadoc output?"
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [digester][VOTE] Remove licence text from javadoc
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 22 Jan 2005, at 17:30, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:31:32 +0000, robert burrell donkin
> <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2005, at 01:00, Martin Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> For now, I am -1 on this.
>>>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken, the reason the license is in there is because we
>>> were specifically asked by the board to include it. Until we are
>>> explicitly told by the board that this is no longer the case, I
>>> believe it needs to stay there.
>>>
>>> I don't count Brian's comments on legal-discuss as sufficient for a
>>> go-ahead to remove it, since he was not speaking with his board
>>> member
>>> hat on. (That is, he mailed from his CollabNet account, not his ASF
>>> account.)
>>
>> i find it really hard to know which hat people are wearing these days.
>> for example, is this -1 with your member hat on (in which case there's
>> no real point continuing this vote) or just as a jakarta committer?
>
> I don't see that there's a meaningful difference here as to whether
> I'm speaking as an ASF member, a Jakarta PMC member, or a Jakarta
> committer. I'm not a board member, so I don't speak for the board, and
> wouldn't pretend to. (I'm curious, though, as to why you believe there
> would be no point continuing the vote if an ASF member -1s, but not if
> a Jakarta committer or PMC member -1s.)
in the end, power rests with the members, not the board. opinions
amongst the wider membership seem now to be formed on private lists and
in the increasing number of committees whose mailing lists are members
only. pmc'ers and committers have no voice and no way to know the
result of any debates held on those lists. it's therefore sometimes
hard to know when a member makes a comment which is meant to be taken
as a personal opinion and when it's meant to be understood as the
current consensus amongst the membership. (as you're probably aware)
the jakarta project is in a weak position and the commons even more so.
to me, it seems better to lose a few battles (by bowing to the opinions
of members) but gain time to restructure jakarta (or at least ensure
it's shut down in an organized fashion). i always now err on the side
of caution.
>> IIRC though there the reason for adding it came from the board, the
>> interpretation (putting the license on javadocs) came from discussions
>> with brian.
>
> This makes it all the more confusing, since the reason for removing it
> also appears to have come from discussions with Brian. I definitely
> think we need clarification before we make any changes.
the legal theories on which the ASF is based seem to have been refined
over the years. i have noticed that there have been a number of
occasions when accepted principles have had to be altered recently in
the light of better legal advice. i find some of the newer organization
theories hard to understand but then IANAL...
i'd personally be happy to follow brian's advice but if you can find
the time to raise this officially as a member, i'd be equally happy to
abide by whatever you discover.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [digester][VOTE] Remove licence text from javadoc
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:31:32 +0000, robert burrell donkin
<ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2005, at 01:00, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > For now, I am -1 on this.
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, the reason the license is in there is because we
> > were specifically asked by the board to include it. Until we are
> > explicitly told by the board that this is no longer the case, I
> > believe it needs to stay there.
> >
> > I don't count Brian's comments on legal-discuss as sufficient for a
> > go-ahead to remove it, since he was not speaking with his board member
> > hat on. (That is, he mailed from his CollabNet account, not his ASF
> > account.)
>
> i find it really hard to know which hat people are wearing these days.
> for example, is this -1 with your member hat on (in which case there's
> no real point continuing this vote) or just as a jakarta committer?
I don't see that there's a meaningful difference here as to whether
I'm speaking as an ASF member, a Jakarta PMC member, or a Jakarta
committer. I'm not a board member, so I don't speak for the board, and
wouldn't pretend to. (I'm curious, though, as to why you believe there
would be no point continuing the vote if an ASF member -1s, but not if
a Jakarta committer or PMC member -1s.)
> IIRC though there the reason for adding it came from the board, the
> interpretation (putting the license on javadocs) came from discussions
> with brian.
This makes it all the more confusing, since the reason for removing it
also appears to have come from discussions with Brian. I definitely
think we need clarification before we make any changes.
--
Martin Cooper
> if it's something that needs to be decided at board level
> then the right thing seems to be raising this on the jakarta pmc list.
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [digester][VOTE] Remove licence text from javadoc
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 21 Jan 2005, at 01:00, Martin Cooper wrote:
> For now, I am -1 on this.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, the reason the license is in there is because we
> were specifically asked by the board to include it. Until we are
> explicitly told by the board that this is no longer the case, I
> believe it needs to stay there.
>
> I don't count Brian's comments on legal-discuss as sufficient for a
> go-ahead to remove it, since he was not speaking with his board member
> hat on. (That is, he mailed from his CollabNet account, not his ASF
> account.)
i find it really hard to know which hat people are wearing these days.
for example, is this -1 with your member hat on (in which case there's
no real point continuing this vote) or just as a jakarta committer?
IIRC though there the reason for adding it came from the board, the
interpretation (putting the license on javadocs) came from discussions
with brian. if it's something that needs to be decided at board level
then the right thing seems to be raising this on the jakarta pmc list.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [digester][VOTE] Remove licence text from javadoc
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
For now, I am -1 on this.
Unless I'm mistaken, the reason the license is in there is because we
were specifically asked by the board to include it. Until we are
explicitly told by the board that this is no longer the case, I
believe it needs to stay there.
I don't count Brian's comments on legal-discuss as sufficient for a
go-ahead to remove it, since he was not speaking with his board member
hat on. (That is, he mailed from his CollabNet account, not his ASF
account.)
(Note that I would be happy to see the license requirement in the
Javadocs go away; I just don't think we have sufficient say-so to do
that quite yet.)
--
Martin Cooper
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:50:17 +1300, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In August 2004, the build.xml file was modified so that when generating
> Javadoc a copy of the apache licence was inserted as an xml comment into
> the footer of generated pages.
>
> Unforunately, this has caused complications, because javadoc appears to
> have cross-platform issues with the quote marks in the text; on
> MS-Windows, the quotes need to be escaped or a javadoc error is
> reported, but if they are escaped then the escape marks get copied
> verbatim to the output under Linux.
>
> In addition, this change makes the build.xml file a bit clumsy; the
> license is quite a lot of text to fit into an xml attribute!
>
> Yes, it would be possible to have separate footer text for windows vs
> linux, but that would make build.xml even uglier.
>
> The licence text seemed unnecessary to me, as:
> * Javadoc is not useful as a "stand-alone" product;
> * Javadoc is generated from source files which *do* have complete
> license text within them; and
> * the output documents an API, with APIs not being copyrightable
>
> I posted a question to legal-discuss@apache.org re this, and got this
> reply:
> =====
> On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 07:58 -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > > Interesting question. First, a perspective point. The copyright notice in
> > > the file is primarily for Apache's benefit. It puts people on notice that
> > > Apache claims copyright on the material.
> >
> > Well, first, it really should be:
> >
> > Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as
> > applicable.
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > > On the other hand, the license (though it does have some benefit to Apache)
> > > is primarily for the user's benefit. Without it, the user has no license
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > So, is the user put at a disadvantage in any way because the license isn't
> > > embedded in the JavaDoc? Wouldn't anyone who understands how JavaDoc works
> > > know exactly how to find out what license is available for that material?
> >
> > My sense is that this is splitting hairs a bit and that the full license,
> > or even the reference to it, doesn't need to be included in the javadoc
> > output - just as we don't embed it as a string in compiled code when we
> > distribute binaries.
>
> =====
> So in summary:
>
> I propose that the build.xml footer text be modified to contain:
>
> Copyright 2001-2004 The Apache Software Foundation
> or its licensors, as applicable.
>
> And that the licence text be removed.
>
> You can see the entire thread at:
> http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200501.mbox/index.html
> with subject: "Licence required in Javadoc output?"
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org