You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com> on 2001/12/27 14:38:00 UTC
is a statement of the license in all source files?
i've been making changes to some commons sub projects and came across some
source files with (what i call) the short form of the license eg.
* 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.
rather than including the complete license text in every source file.
i remember a big flame war about license style and i don't want to
re-ignite it but am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
the short form)?
(i'm not going to change things if it's just a matter of house style, but
if it's a legal requirement then it's something that should be fixed.)
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:38, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i've been making changes to some commons sub projects and came across some
> source files with (what i call) the short form of the license eg.
>
> * 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.
>
> rather than including the complete license text in every source file.
>
> i remember a big flame war about license style and i don't want to
> re-ignite it but am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
> include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
> the short form)?
Not according to Brian Behlendorf (sp?) last time I heard him say anything
about this. I think it should actually be in the archive of this list?
> (i'm not going to change things if it's just a matter of house style, but
> if it's a legal requirement then it's something that should be fixed.)
It is not a legal requirement or anything like that. Theres a fair bit of
nonsense about it going on - I even heard someone say it was "illegal" which
made me chuckle. The main issues is one of policy and enforcability (is this
a word?).
However given it is policy that all projects conform to Suns development/code
standards (yet less than 50% did last time I checked) you can ignore that for
a bit.
Whether it is enforcable enough seems to be debateable but everyone I have
spoken to who actually knows anything about western legal systems (american
and australian being the only two I care about at this stage) say there is no
issue with either form.
Be careful which people you choose to listen to.
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Twain: "In the real world, the right thing never
happens in the right place at the right time. It is
the task of journalists and historians to rectify
this error."
------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <jo...@latchkey.com>
> on 12/28/01 2:03 AM, "James Strachan" <ja...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I thought I saw a mail go by a month or so ago whereby a short form of
the
> > licence was allowable in source files that refers the reader to a
> > LICENSE.txt file?
> >
> > James
>
> I have said it about a thousand times...it isn't ok. There is no short
form
> ASF license at this point. There is one for the 2.0 license, but not the
> 1.1.
Thanks for the clarification Jon. I dug out the mail I was thinking of - its
5th December by Roy Fielding titled 'proposed change to ASF license' on
committers@apache.org. And 2.0 of the license is just a proposal right now -
so it should not be used.
Just out of interest does anyone know the current status of the 2.0
proposal? Any ideas if or when it might become accepted?
James
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by Jon Scott Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 12/28/01 2:03 AM, "James Strachan" <ja...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought I saw a mail go by a month or so ago whereby a short form of the
> licence was allowable in source files that refers the reader to a
> LICENSE.txt file?
>
> James
I have said it about a thousand times...it isn't ok. There is no short form
ASF license at this point. There is one for the 2.0 license, but not the
1.1.
-jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
> > include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
> > the short form)?
> >
>
> My recollection is that you are correct ... we need to be using the long
> form, at least for the version 1.1 license (i.e. the current one).
I thought I saw a mail go by a month or so ago whereby a short form of the
licence was allowable in source files that refers the reader to a
LICENSE.txt file?
James
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
> > include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
> > the short form)?
> >
>
> My recollection is that you are correct ... we need to be using the long
> form, at least for the version 1.1 license (i.e. the current one).
I thought I saw a mail go by a month or so ago whereby a short form of the
licence was allowable in source files that refers the reader to a
LICENSE.txt file?
James
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
> include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
> the short form)?
>
My recollection is that you are correct ... we need to be using the long
form, at least for the version 1.1 license (i.e. the current one).
> - robert
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: is a statement of the license in all source files?
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> am i right in thinking that for legal reasons we need to
> include the complete license text in every source file (rather than just
> the short form)?
>
My recollection is that you are correct ... we need to be using the long
form, at least for the version 1.1 license (i.e. the current one).
> - robert
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>