You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/02 18:38:23 UTC
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We're just going through the configuration files we ship with CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of these files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more permissive license.
>
> To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
>
> Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough documentation (‘README’ files, ‘INSTALL’ files, etc.) can use a simple all-permissive license like this one:
>
> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is,
> without any warranty.
>
> Can we use this license in the same way?
Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems does AL v2 present for these files?
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
I've served for both organisations, and trust me when I say that are. ;)
The ASF is pragmatic, and the FSF is idealistic. And I have found that
difference permeates the entire organisation and culture.
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > This is my suggestion to CloudStack, so let's make it concrete and talk
> about my concerns.
> >
> > I have no problems with the Apache license, and if we could put a file
> under it, explicitly, with a few lines of boilerplate, I wouldn't even
> bring this up. But there isn't, so I was wondering if there might be a way
> to avoid the full boilerplate on small, unimportant files. (Like default
> configs we're shipping. Supporting files.) I remembered that GNU (who are
> way more fanatical about their license than we are) have a simple
> permissive boilerplate for exactly these sorts of situations, and wondered
> whether we would consider that.
>
> This actually made me chuckle. I don't think the ASF is less fanatical
> about the Apache license than the FSF is about the GPL. I think it is
> simply that the Apache license is less fanatical than the GPL :-)
>
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Oct 4, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> This is my suggestion to CloudStack, so let's make it concrete and talk about my concerns.
>
> I have no problems with the Apache license, and if we could put a file under it, explicitly, with a few lines of boilerplate, I wouldn't even bring this up. But there isn't, so I was wondering if there might be a way to avoid the full boilerplate on small, unimportant files. (Like default configs we're shipping. Supporting files.) I remembered that GNU (who are way more fanatical about their license than we are) have a simple permissive boilerplate for exactly these sorts of situations, and wondered whether we would consider that.
This actually made me chuckle. I don't think the ASF is less fanatical about the Apache license than the FSF is about the GPL. I think it is simply that the Apache license is less fanatical than the GPL :-)
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
This is my suggestion to CloudStack, so let's make it concrete and talk
about my concerns.
I have no problems with the Apache license, and if we could put a file
under it, explicitly, with a few lines of boilerplate, I wouldn't even
bring this up. But there isn't, so I was wondering if there might be a way
to avoid the full boilerplate on small, unimportant files. (Like default
configs we're shipping. Supporting files.) I remembered that GNU (who are
way more fanatical about their license than we are) have a simple
permissive boilerplate for exactly these sorts of situations, and wondered
whether we would consider that.
The ticket you mention seems apropos.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> > Here's the thread that started this:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201209.mbox/%3CCC8205AC.2F696%25chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com%3E
> >
> > The summary is: Do we really need to add an Apache license header to all
> of
> > our config files? Are there times we can omit it, or can we add a note to
> > LICENSE saying that all config files are licensed under the Apache
> license.
> >
> > I think this question largely goes away if the ASF approved a short, all
> > permissive, licenses for supporting files. (And the GNU All Permissive,
> as
> > we call it in Debian, seems like as good a place to start as any.)
>
> It is generally presumed that projects that seek a home as the ASF do
> so because they find such things as our model for collaboration and
> our choice for license appealing. After all, there are plenty of
> other places to host a project.
>
> That doesn't mean that exceptions aren't sometimes sought or granted,
> but a question of the form "is it necessary?" and an indication of a
> preference for another license doesn't answer Kevan's " What problems
> does AL v2 present for these files?" question.
>
> The following JIRA issue proposes something specific in an attempt to
> address the "largeness" issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114
>
> Would something like this address the concern?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the
> >> file. A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit
> more. It
> >> would be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such
> >> supporting files.
> >>
> >> (Not talking about small files that form the core of the product. I'm
> >> talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifically in the
> case
> >> of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configuration files for
> various
> >> systems.)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hey,
> >>> >
> >>> > We're just going through the configuration files we ship with
> >>> > CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most
> of these
> >>> > files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more
> permissive
> >>> > license.
> >>> >
> >>> > To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
> >>> >
> >>> > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and
> rough
> >>> > documentation (‘README’ files, ‘INSTALL’ files, etc.) can use a
> simple
> >>> > all-permissive license like this one:
> >>> >
> >>> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> >>> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> >>> > notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is,
> >>> > without any warranty.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can we use this license in the same way?
> >>>
> >>> Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems
> >>> does AL v2 present for these files?
> >>>
> >>> --kevan
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> NS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Here's the thread that started this:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201209.mbox/%3CCC8205AC.2F696%25chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com%3E
>
> The summary is: Do we really need to add an Apache license header to all of
> our config files? Are there times we can omit it, or can we add a note to
> LICENSE saying that all config files are licensed under the Apache license.
>
> I think this question largely goes away if the ASF approved a short, all
> permissive, licenses for supporting files. (And the GNU All Permissive, as
> we call it in Debian, seems like as good a place to start as any.)
It is generally presumed that projects that seek a home as the ASF do
so because they find such things as our model for collaboration and
our choice for license appealing. After all, there are plenty of
other places to host a project.
That doesn't mean that exceptions aren't sometimes sought or granted,
but a question of the form "is it necessary?" and an indication of a
preference for another license doesn't answer Kevan's " What problems
does AL v2 present for these files?" question.
The following JIRA issue proposes something specific in an attempt to
address the "largeness" issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114
Would something like this address the concern?
- Sam Ruby
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>
>> The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the
>> file. A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit more. It
>> would be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such
>> supporting files.
>>
>> (Not talking about small files that form the core of the product. I'm
>> talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifically in the case
>> of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configuration files for various
>> systems.)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hey,
>>> >
>>> > We're just going through the configuration files we ship with
>>> > CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of these
>>> > files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more permissive
>>> > license.
>>> >
>>> > To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
>>> >
>>> > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough
>>> > documentation (‘README’ files, ‘INSTALL’ files, etc.) can use a simple
>>> > all-permissive license like this one:
>>> >
>>> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
>>> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
>>> > notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is,
>>> > without any warranty.
>>> >
>>> > Can we use this license in the same way?
>>>
>>> Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems
>>> does AL v2 present for these files?
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> NS
>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
Here's the thread that started this:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201209.mbox/%3CCC8205AC.2F696%25chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com%3E
The summary is: Do we really need to add an Apache license header to all of
our config files? Are there times we can omit it, or can we add a note to
LICENSE saying that all config files are licensed under the Apache license.
I think this question largely goes away if the ASF approved a short, all
permissive, licenses for supporting files. (And the GNU All Permissive, as
we call it in Debian, seems like as good a place to start as any.)
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the
> file. A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit more.
> It would be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such
> supporting files.
>
> (Not talking about small files that form the core of the product. I'm
> talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifically in the
> case of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configuration files for
> various systems.)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > We're just going through the configuration files we ship with
>> CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of
>> these files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more
>> permissive license.
>> >
>> > To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
>> >
>> > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough
>> documentation (‘README’ files, ‘INSTALL’ files, etc.) can use a simple
>> all-permissive license like this one:
>> >
>> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
>> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
>> > notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is,
>> > without any warranty.
>> >
>> > Can we use this license in the same way?
>>
>> Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems
>> does AL v2 present for these files?
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> NS
>
--
NS
Re: Permissive license for supporting files
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the
file. A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit more.
It would be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such
supporting files.
(Not talking about small files that form the core of the product. I'm
talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifically in the
case of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configuration files for
various systems.)
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > We're just going through the configuration files we ship with
> CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of
> these files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more
> permissive license.
> >
> > To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
> >
> > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough
> documentation (‘README’ files, ‘INSTALL’ files, etc.) can use a simple
> all-permissive license like this one:
> >
> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> > notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is,
> > without any warranty.
> >
> > Can we use this license in the same way?
>
> Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems
> does AL v2 present for these files?
>
> --kevan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS