You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> on 2008/04/03 19:05:31 UTC
site -= apply-license.html
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
any objections?
anything i've missed?
unless anyone shouts, i'll delete it tomorrow (friday) sometime after
1200 hours GMT.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 16:44 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > > > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> > > > > > information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> > > > > > the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> > > > > > removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > any objections?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> > > > > the #new section:
> > > > > - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> > > > > Copyright line now goes in the file.
> > > > > - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> > > > > header text has changed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i'll go through each section:
> > > >
> > > > the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
> > > > completedly outdated
> > >
> > > Disagree, there are still some code bases with 1.1 that may be updated.
> >
> >
> > really?
> >
> >
> > > I think Commons Functors is one.
> >
> >
> > the code bases should really all be converted now: the grant-back clause
> > in AL2 isn't present in AL1.1 so more care needs to be taken when
> > patching those codebases. IMO it's about time that all code is converted
> > but until it is then you're right, some information about conversion
> > probably needs to be retained for archival purposes.
> >
>
> It does not seem feasible to me to update all existing code bases to
> the new AL headers.
> Of course if a new release is planned, then the headers need to be
> updated as part of the release.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > "Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
> > > > 2004?" is no longer relevant
> > > >
> > > > "Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
> > > > correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
> > >
> > > Where?
> >
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal
> >
> >
> > > > "In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
> > > > Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
> > > > misleading
> > > >
> > > > "Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
> > > > source code files?" is not correct
> > >
> > > In what way?
> >
> >
> > legally. see http://www.apache.org/legal.
> >
> >
> > > > "Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
> > > > is accurate but normative
> > >
> > > If it's normative then it needs to be kept.
> >
> >
> > sorry typo normative -> not normative
> >
> > none of the contents are normative (and i should know ;-)
> >
> > the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal
> >
>
> Which refers to .......... guess what?
>
> -- extract from http://www.apache.org/legal ---
>
> >>>>>
> This page also does not describe requirements for
> <a href="http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new">what goes in
> the standard LICENSE file
> <<<<<
>
> That information needs to be added somewhere in the legal tree.
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html describes the right way to
apply the license boilderplate.
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new describes the wrong way.
apache should not claim copyright since it does not own it.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> > > > > information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> > > > > the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> > > > > removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > any objections?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> > > > the #new section:
> > > > - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> > > > Copyright line now goes in the file.
> > > > - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> > > > header text has changed.
> > >
> > >
> > > i'll go through each section:
> > >
> > > the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
> > > completedly outdated
> >
> > Disagree, there are still some code bases with 1.1 that may be updated.
>
>
> really?
>
>
> > I think Commons Functors is one.
>
>
> the code bases should really all be converted now: the grant-back clause
> in AL2 isn't present in AL1.1 so more care needs to be taken when
> patching those codebases. IMO it's about time that all code is converted
> but until it is then you're right, some information about conversion
> probably needs to be retained for archival purposes.
>
It does not seem feasible to me to update all existing code bases to
the new AL headers.
Of course if a new release is planned, then the headers need to be
updated as part of the release.
> <snip>
>
>
> > > "Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
> > > 2004?" is no longer relevant
> > >
> > > "Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
> > > correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
> >
> > Where?
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal
>
>
> > > "In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
> > > Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
> > > misleading
> > >
> > > "Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
> > > source code files?" is not correct
> >
> > In what way?
>
>
> legally. see http://www.apache.org/legal.
>
>
> > > "Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
> > > is accurate but normative
> >
> > If it's normative then it needs to be kept.
>
>
> sorry typo normative -> not normative
>
> none of the contents are normative (and i should know ;-)
>
> the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal
>
Which refers to .......... guess what?
-- extract from http://www.apache.org/legal ---
>>>>>
This page also does not describe requirements for
<a href="http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new">what goes in
the standard LICENSE file
<<<<<
That information needs to be added somewhere in the legal tree.
>
> - robert
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 14:43 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The ASF is an organization for the production of open source
> software, not an exercise in local government. While I do
> appreciate the desire to be more formal in our guidelines,
> there is no reason to place that formality on our website aside
> from the transparency of board minutes. We should instead simply
> minute our decisions as a committee (just like board minutes)
> and let anyone write documentation for our website that happens
> to match the formal decisions in our minutes.
historically, committees and the membership have had a hard time working
as formally as the board with minutes, resolutions etc. approving
descriptions of policy has worked ok in the last few years and has at
least resulted in some progress being made. i have no objections to
moving to minutes etc but wonder whether the foundation is ready.
in the meantime, i think we need to be pragmatic and accept that there
is going to be policy documentation. for example, i'm not going to -1
sam's third party library policy just because it's arrived as a policy
document rather than a resolution in minutes in a formal committee
meeting.
perhaps the most workable solution would be for committee to simply
approach the board with a resolution when they wanted to set new policy.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
The ASF is an organization for the production of open source
software, not an exercise in local government. While I do
appreciate the desire to be more formal in our guidelines,
there is no reason to place that formality on our website aside
from the transparency of board minutes. We should instead simply
minute our decisions as a committee (just like board minutes)
and let anyone write documentation for our website that happens
to match the formal decisions in our minutes.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:34 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2008, at 1:19 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > policy is the problem
> >
> > legal policy is now set here and is managed by the legal committee,
> > not
> > on the site list by the infrastructure committee. traditionally policy
> > has required positive approval whereas lazy approval is fine for
> > non-normative materials. it's important that projects understand which
> > documents are carefully drafted policy material and which are just
> > descriptive guidelines.
>
> Let's not confuse policy with documentation. Policy is set by vote of
> the board, a board committee (like legal affairs), or by ASF membership
> as a whole. It comes in the form of resolutions and is typically
> very broad in form (i.e., see board resolution on license headers).
when policy is made available on the website (for example, the
resolutions contained in the board minutes) then it is both policy and
documentation. this can indeed be confusing unless policy is clearly
deliminated from other documentation. in the case of the board, minutes
are grouped under http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/.
committees are more difficult: these operate less formally by voting on
list without official meetings or minutes. unless a particular
documented policy is being voted on, it's difficult (or impossible) to
work out afterwards what (if anything) has been decided. telling people
to search the mail archives to discover policy is deeply unsatisfactory.
drafting documents to act as statements of policy and then voting on
them is not an unreasonable approach, and has worked well so far. this
means that policy is contained in some documentation. yes, this can be
confusing but it is better than the alternatives tried.
> The stuff on the website is just documentation. Some of it documents
> an approved policy, others just document good practice. The legal bits
> on the website are no more (or less) authoritative than any other part
> of our website, and usually less accurate because people fear to fix
> the bugs. We need more authors, not more barriers.
yes, we need more authors. i don't know why so few people contribute.
IMO one major barrier is that often policy is not clearly enough
deliminated from descriptive material.
the legal documents are almost certainly more authoritative than a lot
of the other material. most of the rest was mostly written by myself and
haven't been maintained for a few years now. the legal documentation is
much newer and has had more eyes looking at it.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 6, 2008, at 1:19 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> policy is the problem
>
> legal policy is now set here and is managed by the legal committee,
> not
> on the site list by the infrastructure committee. traditionally policy
> has required positive approval whereas lazy approval is fine for
> non-normative materials. it's important that projects understand which
> documents are carefully drafted policy material and which are just
> descriptive guidelines.
Let's not confuse policy with documentation. Policy is set by vote of
the board, a board committee (like legal affairs), or by ASF membership
as a whole. It comes in the form of resolutions and is typically
very broad in form (i.e., see board resolution on license headers).
The stuff on the website is just documentation. Some of it documents
an approved policy, others just document good practice. The legal bits
on the website are no more (or less) authoritative than any other part
of our website, and usually less accurate because people fear to fix
the bugs. We need more authors, not more barriers.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 10:55 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 09:13 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >>>> the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal
> >>>
> >>> No, not even close. The information for the public belongs under
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/license/
> >>>
> >>> and the information for our developers belongs under
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/
> >>>
> >>> Everything we do is legal.
> >>
> >> the problem with dev is that it's CTR and often incorrect or outdated
> >> (as in this case)
> >
> > So is the stuff in legal. The only thing that should be CTR is
> > license,
> > and we are quite capable of smacking people who mess that up.
>
> Er, no, I meant they should all be CTR except the LICENSE* files.
> We police our site using svn.
policy is the problem
legal policy is now set here and is managed by the legal committee, not
on the site list by the infrastructure committee. traditionally policy
has required positive approval whereas lazy approval is fine for
non-normative materials. it's important that projects understand which
documents are carefully drafted policy material and which are just
descriptive guidelines.
this is already causing issues in the incubator. releases are being -1'd
on the basis of outdated descriptive material which is not policy. we
need clean and clear rules about what is and what is not policy. the
solution that was adopted (using http://www.apache.org/legal) seems
reasonable enough.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 09:13 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>> the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal
>>>
>>> No, not even close. The information for the public belongs under
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/license/
>>>
>>> and the information for our developers belongs under
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/
>>>
>>> Everything we do is legal.
>>
>> the problem with dev is that it's CTR and often incorrect or outdated
>> (as in this case)
>
> So is the stuff in legal. The only thing that should be CTR is
> license,
> and we are quite capable of smacking people who mess that up.
Er, no, I meant they should all be CTR except the LICENSE* files.
We police our site using svn.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 5, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 09:13 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal
>>
>> No, not even close. The information for the public belongs under
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/license/
>>
>> and the information for our developers belongs under
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/
>>
>> Everything we do is legal.
>
> the problem with dev is that it's CTR and often incorrect or outdated
> (as in this case)
So is the stuff in legal. The only thing that should be CTR is license,
and we are quite capable of smacking people who mess that up.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 09:13 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
> > http://www.apache.org/legal
>
> No, not even close. The information for the public belongs under
>
> http://www.apache.org/license/
>
> and the information for our developers belongs under
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/
>
> Everything we do is legal.
the problem with dev is that it's CTR and often incorrect or outdated
(as in this case)
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
> http://www.apache.org/legal
No, not even close. The information for the public belongs under
http://www.apache.org/license/
and the information for our developers belongs under
http://www.apache.org/dev/
Everything we do is legal.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> > > > information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> > > > the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> > > > removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > any objections?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> > > the #new section:
> > > - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> > > Copyright line now goes in the file.
> > > - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> > > header text has changed.
> >
> >
> > i'll go through each section:
> >
> > the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
> > completedly outdated
>
> Disagree, there are still some code bases with 1.1 that may be updated.
really?
> I think Commons Functors is one.
the code bases should really all be converted now: the grant-back clause
in AL2 isn't present in AL1.1 so more care needs to be taken when
patching those codebases. IMO it's about time that all code is converted
but until it is then you're right, some information about conversion
probably needs to be retained for archival purposes.
<snip>
> > "Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
> > 2004?" is no longer relevant
> >
> > "Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
> > correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
>
> Where?
http://www.apache.org/legal
> > "In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
> > Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
> > misleading
> >
> > "Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
> > source code files?" is not correct
>
> In what way?
legally. see http://www.apache.org/legal.
> > "Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
> > is accurate but normative
>
> If it's normative then it needs to be kept.
sorry typo normative -> not normative
none of the contents are normative (and i should know ;-)
the only normative legal material is now the RTC stuff under
http://www.apache.org/legal
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 05/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> > On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> > > information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> > > the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> > > removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> > >
> >
> > > any objections?
> > >
> >
> > I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> > the #new section:
> > - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> > Copyright line now goes in the file.
> > - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> > header text has changed.
>
>
> i'll go through each section:
>
> the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
> completedly outdated
Disagree, there are still some code bases with 1.1 that may be updated.
I think Commons Functors is one.
> "Understanding the 2.0 license" is good prose but covered better
> elsewhere
Where?
> "Applying the license to existing software" conerns the AL1.1->AL2.0
> license update and is therefore competely outdated
>
> "Do I have to convert Apache 1.1 licenses to 2.0 licenses in source
> code?" is no longer relevant
Are you sure?
Code bases sometimes lie dormant for some while before being revived.
Commons Functors.
> "Where do I find a copy of the new license?" is trivial
>
> "When do I have to convert ASF code to the new license?" is no longer
> relevant
>
> "Do I have to convert old versions and branches of code to the new
> license?" is no longer relevant
Disagree for same reason as above.
> "Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
> 2004?" is no longer relevant
>
> "Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
> correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
Where?
> "In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
> Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
> misleading
>
> "Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
> source code files?" is not correct
In what way?
> "Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
> is accurate but normative
If it's normative then it needs to be kept.
> "Should the license be included in source files for documentation (e.g.
> XML that is transformed to HTML)?" accurate but not normative
>
>
> > > anything i've missed?
> > >
> > > unless anyone shouts, i'll delete it tomorrow (friday) sometime after
> > > 1200 hours GMT.
> > >
> >
> > Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.
>
>
> the reason why it's outdated is that it's in the wrong place :-)
>
>
> > But I do agree that this whole area needs re-organising to make it
> > absolutely clear what the requirements are, i.e. the legal
> > requirements and the ASF policy, which AFAIK goes beyond the strict
> > legal requirements.
> >
> > It may be that the document is eventually deleted as part of the
> > re-organisation, but I think it's too early to do that yet.
>
>
> the re-organisation has already happened: the legal stuff has been moved
> into http://www.apache.org/legal and used by reference. the current
> focus is third party software rules and in particular LGPL issues but
> please feel free to kick off new discussions on the parts of that
> document that you feel strongly about. creating a initial draft on the
> legal wiki is the best way to start.
>
>
> - robert
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 09:00 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.
> >
> > the reason why it's outdated is that it's in the wrong place :-)
>
> Can you please ensure that there is a link/redirect from the old URL
> to the appropriate location, for anyone staring at equally old docs
> which refer to it?
that was the plan :-)
was planning a htaccess redirect buy maybe i'll just add a link...
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
>>
>> Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.
>
> the reason why it's outdated is that it's in the wrong place :-)
Can you please ensure that there is a link/redirect from the old URL
to the appropriate location, for anyone staring at equally old docs
which refer to it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> > information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> > the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> > removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> >
>
> > any objections?
> >
>
> I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> the #new section:
> - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> Copyright line now goes in the file.
> - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> header text has changed.
i'll go through each section:
the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
completedly outdated
"Understanding the 2.0 license" is good prose but covered better
elsewhere
"Applying the license to existing software" conerns the AL1.1->AL2.0
license update and is therefore competely outdated
"Do I have to convert Apache 1.1 licenses to 2.0 licenses in source
code?" is no longer relevant
"Where do I find a copy of the new license?" is trivial
"When do I have to convert ASF code to the new license?" is no longer
relevant
"Do I have to convert old versions and branches of code to the new
license?" is no longer relevant
"Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
2004?" is no longer relevant
"Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
correct but covered in more detail elsewhere
"In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
misleading
"Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
source code files?" is not correct
"Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
is accurate but normative
"Should the license be included in source files for documentation (e.g.
XML that is transformed to HTML)?" accurate but not normative
> > anything i've missed?
> >
> > unless anyone shouts, i'll delete it tomorrow (friday) sometime after
> > 1200 hours GMT.
> >
>
> Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.
the reason why it's outdated is that it's in the wrong place :-)
> But I do agree that this whole area needs re-organising to make it
> absolutely clear what the requirements are, i.e. the legal
> requirements and the ASF policy, which AFAIK goes beyond the strict
> legal requirements.
>
> It may be that the document is eventually deleted as part of the
> re-organisation, but I think it's too early to do that yet.
the re-organisation has already happened: the legal stuff has been moved
into http://www.apache.org/legal and used by reference. the current
focus is third party software rules and in particular LGPL issues but
please feel free to kick off new discussions on the parts of that
document that you feel strongly about. creating a initial draft on the
legal wiki is the best way to start.
- robert
Re: site -= apply-license.html
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
>
> any objections?
>
I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
the #new section:
- the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
Copyright line now goes in the file.
- the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
header text has changed.
> anything i've missed?
>
> unless anyone shouts, i'll delete it tomorrow (friday) sometime after
> 1200 hours GMT.
>
Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.
But I do agree that this whole area needs re-organising to make it
absolutely clear what the requirements are, i.e. the legal
requirements and the ASF policy, which AFAIK goes beyond the strict
legal requirements.
It may be that the document is eventually deleted as part of the
re-organisation, but I think it's too early to do that yet.
> - robert
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org