You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Darrell DeBoer <da...@apache.org> on 2002/12/04 02:13:45 UTC
Short Apache licence for source files
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.
--
ciao,
Daz
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 12:02 04.12.2002 +0100, 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.
I am not sure I understand.
In our particular case, that is the Apache Software License version
1.1, the license talks about "this software" not about any specific
file.
Source: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE and
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html
The copyright notice + reference text we are talking about has the
form:
/*
* 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.txt file.
*/
How could the situation you mention arise in our case?
>Stefan
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Ceki Gülc <ce...@qos.ch> 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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
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.
The next license is intended to fix this.
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Stefan Mainz <St...@Dynaware.de>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
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 <da...@apache.org> 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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 10:43 04.12.2002 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>As was said : it is simply not allowed by the board.
I do not mean to offend anyone, but hearsay is not good enough. 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 statements.
Yes, it is theoretically safer to include the license in each file, but
including a copyright notice followed by reference to the license
should be good enough (because it makes sense.)
>Mvgr,
>Martin
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
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 Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Jon Scott Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 2002/12/4 11:30 AM, "Martin Cooper" <ma...@apache.org> 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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, 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:
> >>
...
> >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.
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
>
> >--
> >Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
>
> --
> 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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
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?
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.
You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go ask
directly and eventually report back.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
--
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Darrell DeBoer <da...@apache.org> 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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Jeffrey Dever <js...@sympatico.ca>.
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: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
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 nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>