Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>]

On 8/6/07, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> *sigh* Sometimes the ASF overhead can be such a pain...  The headers
> are fine when you use an IDE, but when you use vi, it means scrolling
> down the 50 or whatever lines every time, which is so annoying.

I agree with Don. Injecting all the licensing falderah into example
applications accomplishes no clear purpose. It's just licensing OCD.

As a matter of law, the license in the root of the distribution covers
everything.

We reiterate headers in the source files just in case they are
separated from the distribution. In source code, when patent issues
and other concerns might be involved, embedding the copyright and
license might conceivably make a difference, somewhere, sometime.
(Though, I expect the scenarios remain far fetched.)

In the case example applications and build files, I don't see why
licensing OCD would apply. If we include the headers, then we are
compelling anyone who cribs from the examples to include the header
too. I don't believe that is what we intend.

The underlying problem is that under US copyright law there is no
longer any clear way to put material into the public domain. Even if
you say "I hereby donate this material to the public domain",
technically, you still have a copyright claim (and a copyright
liability).

We assert our copyright so that we can assert a license so that we can
disclaim liability and inject other terms regarding patents and such.
As mentioned, asserting that claim once in the root of the
distribution is all we *need* to do. Injecting the headers into source
files is just our way of saying that we take licensing seriously, and
thereby reassure existing and potential volunteers that they can trust
us with their own donations and grants.

Even so, creating licensed material is not our mission. Our mission is
to foster collaboration. In the case of example application, I don't
see that licensing OCD reinforces our core goal. It only makes it
harder for people in our community to utilize the examples, and harder
for the volunteers to maintain the example. It hinders without
helping.

-Ted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[James Mitchell <jm...@gmail.com>]

Well, with ~1,500 emails coming and going through my mail client per  
week (and that's *after* the spam filter), it would be a miracle if I  
had actually saved something from those discussions.  Problem is that  
some of those lists are not public, so we'd be out of luck if it were  
one of those.

Oh well, if it comes down to needing a Maven plugin as Niall  
mentioned, let me know, I've done this with a different type of task.


--
James Mitchell



On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:

> 2007/8/7, James Mitchell <jm...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> To all:
>>
>> I am very certain that this has been discussed at length (beating a
>> dead horse) on multiple occasions on community@, legal@, user and dev
>> @ commons, and probably others as well.
>>
>> Do we really have to go over all of this again?
>
>
>
> No, if you tell us what was the final response :-)
>
> Antonio


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>]

2007/8/7, James Mitchell <jm...@gmail.com>:
>
> To all:
>
> I am very certain that this has been discussed at length (beating a
> dead horse) on multiple occasions on community@, legal@, user and dev
> @ commons, and probably others as well.
>
> Do we really have to go over all of this again?



No, if you tell us what was the final response :-)

Antonio

Re: Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[James Mitchell <jm...@gmail.com>]

To all:

I am very certain that this has been discussed at length (beating a  
dead horse) on multiple occasions on community@, legal@, user and dev  
@ commons, and probably others as well.

Do we really have to go over all of this again?


--
James Mitchell



On Aug 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:

> 2007/8/7, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>:
>>
>> On 8/6/07, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
>>> *sigh* Sometimes the ASF overhead can be such a pain...  The headers
>>> are fine when you use an IDE, but when you use vi, it means  
>>> scrolling
>>> down the 50 or whatever lines every time, which is so annoying.
>>
>> I agree with Don. Injecting all the licensing falderah into example
>> applications accomplishes no clear purpose. It's just licensing OCD.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the ignorance, OCD=Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Ah ok I  
> got the
> irony :-)
> Maybe it's simply paranoia :-P
>
> As a matter of law, the license in the root of the distribution covers
>> everything.
>>
> We reiterate headers in the source files just in case they are
>> separated from the distribution. In source code, when patent issues
>> and other concerns might be involved, embedding the copyright and
>> license might conceivably make a difference, somewhere, sometime.
>> (Though, I expect the scenarios remain far fetched.)
>
>
> I agree with you, Ted: I think that the license headers are not  
> useful at
> all. But I don't think this is the place for such a discussion,  
> since I
> think that it should be decided at a "foundation-level". I think  
> that, if we
> remove the license headers from example, we are outlaw in Apache  
> sense of
> the term. We could discuss to change the law, but not in Struts  
> mailing
> lists.
>
> Antonio


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>]

On 8/7/07, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you, Ted: I think that the license headers are not useful at
> all. But I don't think this is the place for such a discussion, since I
> think that it should be decided at a "foundation-level". I think that, if we
> remove the license headers from example, we are outlaw in Apache sense of
> the term. We could discuss to change the law, but not in Struts mailing
> lists.

Yes, but before having the discussion at a foundation-level, again, it
makes sense to have it here first.

-Ted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Licensing OCD (was Re: svn commit: r563238 [1/6])

[Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>]

2007/8/7, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>:
>
> On 8/6/07, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> > *sigh* Sometimes the ASF overhead can be such a pain...  The headers
> > are fine when you use an IDE, but when you use vi, it means scrolling
> > down the 50 or whatever lines every time, which is so annoying.
>
> I agree with Don. Injecting all the licensing falderah into example
> applications accomplishes no clear purpose. It's just licensing OCD.



Sorry for the ignorance, OCD=Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Ah ok I got the
irony :-)
Maybe it's simply paranoia :-P

As a matter of law, the license in the root of the distribution covers
> everything.
>
We reiterate headers in the source files just in case they are
> separated from the distribution. In source code, when patent issues
> and other concerns might be involved, embedding the copyright and
> license might conceivably make a difference, somewhere, sometime.
> (Though, I expect the scenarios remain far fetched.)


I agree with you, Ted: I think that the license headers are not useful at
all. But I don't think this is the place for such a discussion, since I
think that it should be decided at a "foundation-level". I think that, if we
remove the license headers from example, we are outlaw in Apache sense of
the term. We could discuss to change the law, but not in Struts mailing
lists.

Antonio