You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> on 2012/07/04 08:33:38 UTC
[DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Hi
When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new projects
http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
*generated* files.
Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
not use any license headers,
or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
for the end users to decide for that.
Any thoughts?
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
+1, end user should have the right to decide which kind of license he
will use.
But I'm not sure if it is right for us to remove the ASL from the
source code of camel maven archetype.
On Wed Jul 4 14:33:38 2012, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new projects
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>
> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>
> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>
> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> *generated* files.
> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> not use any license headers,
> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>
> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> for the end users to decide for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
--
Willem
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: willemjiang
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Charles Moulliard <cm...@gmail.com>.
+1 to remove Apache License from code generated
Charles Moulliard
Apache Committer
Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard
Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard
Skype: cmoulliard
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
> projects
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>
> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>
> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>
> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> *generated* files.
> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> not use any license headers,
> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>
> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> for the end users to decide for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Am 04.07.2012 09:45, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Christian Schneider
> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>> Basically I agree that we should not have Apache License headers as people
>> will have to manually remove them.
>> On the other hand it is important that we have a license for the code the
>> archetype generates. Without
>> a license people might be insecure what they may do with the code.
>>
> Frankly I that the current situation is worse, as the generated code
> is licensed to ASF by one of the contributor agreements.
> And the person generated that code is very very likely not already an
> ASF contributor. And the source code is not intended to
> be contributed to ASF and included in the ASF organization, eg in any
> of the ASF projects.
I agree .. ideally I also would like the generated code to be as freely
usable as possible.
> Instead the person want to use the generated code as a base for a new project.
> And therefore he/she would in a better position if there was NO
> licenses generated at all. Then its 100% clean.
> Otherwise that person most likely need to remove the licenses to make
> it comply with his organization.
That is absolutely wrong. If there is no license than that means that
you have no rights at all on the code. Ask your lawyer about this.
So I think we can either use the Apache License which is the easiest way
for as as we use it all day long or we have to search for a even more
permissive license.
The problem with using another license is that we need some feddback
from Apache and perhaps even a lawyer that we use it correctly and may
use it.
>
>
> Any why do you think its important that generated code from a maven
> tooling *must* have licenses.
> The tool is for end users to create new projects, and to make their
> life easier. Not harder / more confusing / annoying.
Well because it is the law? The law is not easy and often annoying but
ignoring it only gets you into trouble.
>
> What they do with the code is their business. We should just be happy
> that there is a demand for this tool, and
> we should make the lives of our end users easier.
Yes. But we should provide good legal safety for our users. If we do not
then our end users may soon face some security staff from their company
who tells them they may not use our code at all.
>
>
>
>> I think the Apache license might still be ok for the archetypes but we could
>> simply put it in the base dir of the generated code.
>>
>
> Other ASF projects do *NOT* include license headers.
> For example I tried the Karaf 2.2.8 commands
I also support removing the license headers on the files if we may do it
from the apache side. Still we need a license or our users may be in
trouble.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Basically I agree that we should not have Apache License headers as people
> will have to manually remove them.
> On the other hand it is important that we have a license for the code the
> archetype generates. Without
> a license people might be insecure what they may do with the code.
>
Frankly I that the current situation is worse, as the generated code
is licensed to ASF by one of the contributor agreements.
And the person generated that code is very very likely not already an
ASF contributor. And the source code is not intended to
be contributed to ASF and included in the ASF organization, eg in any
of the ASF projects.
Instead the person want to use the generated code as a base for a new project.
And therefore he/she would in a better position if there was NO
licenses generated at all. Then its 100% clean.
Otherwise that person most likely need to remove the licenses to make
it comply with his organization.
Any why do you think its important that generated code from a maven
tooling *must* have licenses.
The tool is for end users to create new projects, and to make their
life easier. Not harder / more confusing / annoying.
What they do with the code is their business. We should just be happy
that there is a demand for this tool, and
we should make the lives of our end users easier.
> I think the Apache license might still be ok for the archetypes but we could
> simply put it in the base dir of the generated code.
>
Other ASF projects do *NOT* include license headers.
For example I tried the Karaf 2.2.8 commands
You can try it by
mvn archetype:generate
and in the interactive mode type: karaf ENTER
And select this archetype and version
karaf-blueprint-archetype:2.2.8
And you get a new project generated that is 100% license header free.
That is good for end users.
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 08:33, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>> projects
>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>>
>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>
>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>
>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>> *generated* files.
>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>> not use any license headers,
>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>
>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Basically I agree that we should not have Apache License headers as
people will have to manually remove them.
On the other hand it is important that we have a license for the code
the archetype generates. Without
a license people might be insecure what they may do with the code.
I think the Apache license might still be ok for the archetypes but we
could simply put it in the base dir of the generated code.
Christian
Am 04.07.2012 08:33, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> Hi
>
> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new projects
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>
> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>
> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>
> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> *generated* files.
> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> not use any license headers,
> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>
> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> for the end users to decide for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Müller <ch...@gmail.com>.
I had a look into the CXF archetype (for jaxws) and I think they have a
good solution.
The source files have the Apache license header in the properties file
format (## prefix) which are filtered out in the generated files if we
enable filtering (what we already did for most of the generated files) by
executing the archetype. At the end, we have source files with the Apache
license header (which is required) and without any license headers in the
generated files (I think this is the solution we are looking for). And if
we want, we could include a statement in the generated files like
"generated by Apache Maven" or "generated by the Apache Camel
camel-archetype-java plugin" or so like suggested by Lawrence Rosen.
I will go ahead and update the archetypes today or tomorrow...
@Dan: Thanks for the hint. And by the the way, the jaxrs archetype doesn't
have the Apache license header in its sources... ;-)
Best,
Christian
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:29:48 PM Claus Ibsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to
> > > get
> > > the board involved with that.
> > > We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in
> > > the
> > > jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
> > > and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> > > My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
> >
> > Yeah it must have.
> >
> > Because basically all the existing Apache products that have Maven
> > Archetypes I have tried, generate source code with *NO* license
> > headers.
> >
> > For example from Karaf, Maven, CXF etc.
> >
> > You can just try using mvn archetype:generate, and chose any of the
> > Apache Project archetypes such as for example:
> > org.apache.cxf.archetype:cxf-jaxrs-service
>
> Had a similar discussion as part of:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4375
>
> about removing the license header things.
>
> In anycase, I'm +1 to removing the header from the generated code, but -1
> to
> removing them from the initial templates.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> > >
> > > chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> > >> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before
> our
> > >> next release and we already remove the license headers.
> > >> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the
> > >> generated
> > >> code and in the best case we are fine.
> > >>
> > >> Christian
> > >>
> > >> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> > >> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic.
> > >> To
> > >>
> > >>> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on
> > >>> the
> > >>> safe side.
> > >>> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can
> > >>> simply
> > >>> follow.
> > >>>
> > >>> Christian
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
> > >>>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
> > >>>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<
> http://www.e
> > >>>> clipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>>>>>
> > >>>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
> > >>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for
> > >>>>> generated/template code?
> > >>>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
> > >>>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
> > >>>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Christian
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> > >>>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> user
> > >>>>>> to decide which license to use.
> > >>>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <
> claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create
> > >>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>> projects
> > >>>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html<
> http://camel
> > >>>>>>> .apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license
> > >>>>>>> headers.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> > >>>>>>> *generated* files.
> > >>>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they
> > >>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>> not use any license headers,
> > >>>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and
> > >>>>>>> leave it
> > >>>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Any thoughts?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
> > >>>>>>> -----------------
> > >>>>>>> FuseSource
> > >>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> > >>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
> > >>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> > >>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> > >>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Christian Schneider
> > >>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Open Source Architect
> > >>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Christian Schneider
> > >> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> > >>
> > >> Open Source Architect
> > >> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > ------------------------
> > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > ------------------------
> > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > > http://fusesource.com
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF license headers
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:29:48 PM Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to
> > get
> > the board involved with that.
> > We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in
> > the
> > jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
> > and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> > My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
>
> Yeah it must have.
>
> Because basically all the existing Apache products that have Maven
> Archetypes I have tried, generate source code with *NO* license
> headers.
>
> For example from Karaf, Maven, CXF etc.
>
> You can just try using mvn archetype:generate, and chose any of the
> Apache Project archetypes such as for example:
> org.apache.cxf.archetype:cxf-jaxrs-service
Had a similar discussion as part of:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4375
about removing the license header things.
In anycase, I'm +1 to removing the header from the generated code, but -1 to
removing them from the initial templates.
Dan
>
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> >
> > chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> >> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
> >> next release and we already remove the license headers.
> >> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the
> >> generated
> >> code and in the best case we are fine.
> >>
> >> Christian
> >>
> >> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> >> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic.
> >> To
> >>
> >>> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on
> >>> the
> >>> safe side.
> >>> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can
> >>> simply
> >>> follow.
> >>>
> >>> Christian
> >>>
> >>> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
> >>>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
> >>>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.e
> >>>> clipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>>>>>
> >>>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
> >>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>>> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for
> >>>>> generated/template code?
> >>>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
> >>>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
> >>>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Christian
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> >>>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> user
> >>>>>> to decide which license to use.
> >>>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create
> >>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html<http://camel
> >>>>>>> .apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license
> >>>>>>> headers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> >>>>>>> *generated* files.
> >>>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they
> >>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>> not use any license headers,
> >>>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and
> >>>>>>> leave it
> >>>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
> >>>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>> FuseSource
> >>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> >>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
> >>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> >>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> >>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Christian Schneider
> >>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Open Source Architect
> >>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christian Schneider
> >> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> >>
> >> Open Source Architect
> >> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > ------------------------
> > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > http://fusesource.com
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get
> the board involved with that.
> We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in the
> jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
> and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
>
Yeah it must have.
Because basically all the existing Apache products that have Maven
Archetypes I have tried, generate source code with *NO* license
headers.
For example from Karaf, Maven, CXF etc.
You can just try using mvn archetype:generate, and chose any of the
Apache Project archetypes such as for example:
org.apache.cxf.archetype:cxf-jaxrs-service
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
>> next release and we already remove the license headers.
>> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
>> code and in the best case we are fine.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
>>
>> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. To
>>> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
>>> safe side.
>>> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
>>> follow.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
>>>
>>>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
>>>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
>>>>> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template
>>>>> code?
>>>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
>>>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
>>>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the
>>>>>> user
>>>>>> to decide which license to use.
>>>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>>>>>> *generated* files.
>>>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>>>>>> not use any license headers,
>>>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>>>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Müller <ch...@gmail.com>.
I want to have a legal advice here. Feel free to watch
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141 or add comments.
I can live with every outcome (which should be the best for us and our
users from a legal point of view)...
Best,
Christian
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
> > Very good idea. I have done some research:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-124<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124>
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#faq-**exceptions<
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
> >
> > So it looks like we are required to have the license in all files we have
> > in svn and also in each artifact we distribute. The only exemption are
> very
> > simple files with no creativity.
> >
> > Still an archetype could strip that header when generating the effective
> > code. The problem is that we are then unsure what this means for the
> user.
> > If the resulting file contains
> > enough creativity then it may be copyrighted and may not be used without
> a
> > license (at least that is what I understood).
>
>
> As an user I'll throw in my opinion. Generated code should either not
> include a license header or it should allow for the user to specify a
> header as an archetype option. Including the ASF header is the wrong option
> in my opinion. It's up to the person generating the code to properly
> include the appropriate license info (or none if it's not needed).
>
> +1 to removing the header from generated code.
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > There seems to be no issue with a decision about generated code or
> > archetypes in the jira. So I have created an issue to get that resolved:
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-141<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141>
> >
> >
> > Christian
> >
> >
> > Am 04.07.2012 11:05, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> >
> > There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get
> > the board involved with that.
> > We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in
> the
> > jira https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL>
> > and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> > My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> > chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> >
> > So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
> > next release and we already remove the license headers.
> > In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
> > code and in the best case we are fine.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> >
> > This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic.
> To
> >
> > make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
> > safe side.
> > Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
> > follow.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
> >
> > I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
> > http://www.eclipsezone.com/****eclipse/forums/t116081.html<
> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
> > <ht**tp://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<
> http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
> > >
> >
> > On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
> >
> > My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
> >
> > use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for
> generated/template
> > code?
> > If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
> > legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
> > specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> >
> > Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the
> > user
> > to decide which license to use.
> > So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
> > projects
> > http://camel.apache.org/camel-****maven-archetypes.html<
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html>
> > <http:/**/camel.apache.org/camel-maven-**archetypes.html<
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
> > >
> >
> > Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
> >
> > Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
> >
> > I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> > *generated* files.
> > Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> > not use any license headers,
> > or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
> >
> > I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> > for the end users to decide for that.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > FuseSource
> > Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> > Web: http://fusesource.com
> > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> > Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Schneider
> > http://www.liquid-reality.de
> >
> > Open Source Architect
> > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Schneider
> > http://www.liquid-reality.de
> >
> > Open Source Architect
> > Talend
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Very good idea. I have done some research:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-124<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#faq-**exceptions<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
>
> So it looks like we are required to have the license in all files we have
> in svn and also in each artifact we distribute. The only exemption are very
> simple files with no creativity.
>
> Still an archetype could strip that header when generating the effective
> code. The problem is that we are then unsure what this means for the user.
> If the resulting file contains
> enough creativity then it may be copyrighted and may not be used without a
> license (at least that is what I understood).
As an user I'll throw in my opinion. Generated code should either not
include a license header or it should allow for the user to specify a
header as an archetype option. Including the ASF header is the wrong option
in my opinion. It's up to the person generating the code to properly
include the appropriate license info (or none if it's not needed).
+1 to removing the header from generated code.
Chris
>
> There seems to be no issue with a decision about generated code or
> archetypes in the jira. So I have created an issue to get that resolved:
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL-141<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141>
>
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 04.07.2012 11:05, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>
> There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get
> the board involved with that.
> We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in the
> jira https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LEGAL<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL>
> and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>
> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
> next release and we already remove the license headers.
> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
> code and in the best case we are fine.
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
>
> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. To
>
> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
> safe side.
> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
> follow.
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
>
> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
> http://www.eclipsezone.com/****eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
> <ht**tp://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
> >
>
> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
>
> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template
> code?
> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>
> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the
> user
> to decide which license to use.
> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
> projects
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-****maven-archetypes.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html>
> <http:/**/camel.apache.org/camel-maven-**archetypes.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
> >
>
> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>
> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>
> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> *generated* files.
> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> not use any license headers,
> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>
> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> for the end users to decide for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Very good idea. I have done some research:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
So it looks like we are required to have the license in all files we
have in svn and also in each artifact we distribute. The only exemption
are very simple files with no creativity.
Still an archetype could strip that header when generating the effective
code. The problem is that we are then unsure what this means for the
user. If the resulting file contains
enough creativity then it may be copyrighted and may not be used without
a license (at least that is what I understood).
There seems to be no issue with a decision about generated code or
archetypes in the jira. So I have created an issue to get that resolved:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-141
Christian
Am 04.07.2012 11:05, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get
> the board involved with that.
> We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in the
> jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
> and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
> My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
>> next release and we already remove the license headers.
>> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
>> code and in the best case we are fine.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
>>
>> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. To
>>> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
>>> safe side.
>>> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
>>> follow.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
>>>
>>>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
>>>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
>>>>> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template
>>>>> code?
>>>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
>>>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
>>>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the
>>>>>> user
>>>>>> to decide which license to use.
>>>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>>>>>> *generated* files.
>>>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>>>>>> not use any license headers,
>>>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>>>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
There's a mailing list specific for legal matters, there's no need to get
the board involved with that.
We should rather look for archives in legal-discuss@apache.org and in the
jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
and if we can't find anything, raise a JIRA issue there.
My guts feeling is that is has already been discussed somewhere.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Christian Schneider <
chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
> next release and we already remove the license headers.
> In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
> code and in the best case we are fine.
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
>
> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. To
>> make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
>> safe side.
>> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
>> follow.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
>>
>>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
>>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/**eclipse/forums/t116081.html<http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html>
>>>
>>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
>>>> use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template
>>>> code?
>>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
>>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
>>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>>
>>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the
>>>>> user
>>>>> to decide which license to use.
>>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>>>>> projects
>>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-**maven-archetypes.html<http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>>>>> *generated* files.
>>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>>>>> not use any license headers,
>>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
FuseSource, Integration everywhere
http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
So my proposal is that I organize a statement from the board before our
next release and we already remove the license headers.
In the worst case I think we have to add a license file to the generated
code and in the best case we are fine.
Christian
Am 04.07.2012 10:30, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic.
> To make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are
> on the safe side.
> Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can
> simply follow.
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
>> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse -
>> http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html
>>
>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed
>>> to use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for
>>> generated/template code?
>>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
>>> legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
>>> specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to
>>>> the user
>>>> to decide which license to use.
>>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>>>> projects
>>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license
>>>>> headers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>>>> *generated* files.
>>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>>>> not use any license headers,
>>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and
>>>>> leave it
>>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
This is already a good tendency that generated code is unproblematic. To
make sure I propose we get a statement from the board then we are on the
safe side.
Perhaps this can then also be written down so other projects can simply
follow.
Christian
Am 04.07.2012 10:24, schrieb Rob Davies:
> I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse - http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html
>
> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template code?
>> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the user
>>> to decide which license to use.
>>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>>> projects
>>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>>>>
>>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>>
>>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>>>
>>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>>> *generated* files.
>>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>>> not use any license headers,
>>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> -----------------
>>>> FuseSource
>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF license headers
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
I think this thread is helpful - its from Eclipse - http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t116081.html
On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:19, Christian Schneider wrote:
> My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for generated/template code?
> If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
>
> Christian
>
> Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the user
>> to decide which license to use.
>> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>>> projects
>>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>>>
>>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>>
>>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>>
>>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>>> *generated* files.
>>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>>> not use any license headers,
>>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>>
>>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> -----------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
My current understanding is that you can not assume you are allowed to
use code if it has no license. Is there an exception for
generated/template code?
If yes then I am supporting this but we should make sure this works
legally. Can we get some confirmation about this from some license
specialist from apache or is this written down somehere already?
Christian
Am 04.07.2012 10:12, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the user
> to decide which license to use.
> So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
>> projects
>> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>>
>> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>>
>> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>>
>> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
>> *generated* files.
>> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
>> not use any license headers,
>> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>>
>> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
>> for the end users to decide for that.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> FuseSource
>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF
license headers
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Generated code should not be licensed or copyrighted. It's up to the user
to decide which license to use.
So +1 for removing any header from generated code.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> When end users of Camel uses the Camel Maven Archetypes to create new
> projects
> http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-archetypes.html
>
> Then we generate a new skeleton Maven project for them.
>
> Currently these *generated* source files contains ASF license headers.
>
> I want to discuss if we should remove these ASF headers from the
> *generated* files.
> Our end users works in organization that build software, and they may
> not use any license headers,
> or use their own license headers, or use another kind of header.
>
> I think we should not include any license headers at all, and leave it
> for the end users to decide for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
FuseSource, Integration everywhere
http://fusesource.com