You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au> on 2004/02/12 10:16:48 UTC
Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Peoples,
For those who have not seen it - there are some guidelines (thanks to
Roy!) on applying the 2.0 license to code at :
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
They have been very useful for us.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
Thanks.
Has anyone developed more tools to assist with this? I know
that Adam and Antoine have done the relicense.py in the
committers CVS. Should that be mentioned at apply-license.html
We need another tool to determine the first and last commit
date of any file that does not yet have a license header.
For example *.xml and *.xsl and most importantly Cocoon's
sitemap.xmap and Ant's build.xml files.
I did start to make a Perl script to parse the output of
a recursive 'cvs log' command. Surely there is some clever
person amongst us who knows a better way.
There is the added issue of needing to determine whether a file
has been moved in cvs and get the history of its old location.
For the crucial source files like the sitemap.xmap we would
need to investigate them manually.
So does anyone yet have any tools or methods to assist with
any part of that job?
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
There's no quick answer; the question is, will someone who is making a
good-faith effort to follow the license not realize that the LICENSE and
NOTICE files are slightly differently named, and thus not follow whatever
related requirements are in the license. Even in that rare circumstance,
most of the time it'll be an honest mistake - I doubt someone would defend
their right to disobey those terms when they're told about their mistake.
Well, the quick answer is probably: yes, that's alright. But if a weird
problem arose, we could simply switch to a more conservative
interpretation.
Brian
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, John Keyes wrote:
> Roy, Berin,
>
> This document states the license file must be called 'LICENSE'
> and the notice file called 'NOTICE'. In jakarta-commons the
> convention used for the license file is LICENSE.txt. So my question
> is, MUST the files be called 'LICENSE' and 'NOTICE' or will
> 'LICENSE.txt' and 'NOTICE.txt' suffice? Just seeking clarification
> on this.
>
> Thanks,
> -John K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
> This document states the license file must be called 'LICENSE'
> and the notice file called 'NOTICE'. In jakarta-commons the
> convention used for the license file is LICENSE.txt. So my question
> is, MUST the files be called 'LICENSE' and 'NOTICE' or will
> 'LICENSE.txt' and 'NOTICE.txt' suffice? Just seeking clarification
> on this.
Yes, it is alright. Some filesystems don't even show the name
extension.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Posted by John Keyes <jk...@apache.org>.
Roy, Berin,
This document states the license file must be called 'LICENSE'
and the notice file called 'NOTICE'. In jakarta-commons the
convention used for the license file is LICENSE.txt. So my question
is, MUST the files be called 'LICENSE' and 'NOTICE' or will
'LICENSE.txt' and 'NOTICE.txt' suffice? Just seeking clarification
on this.
Thanks,
-John K
On 12 Feb 2004, at 20:28, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> For those who have not seen it - there are some guidelines (thanks to
>> Roy!) on applying the 2.0 license to code at :
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> Not just me -- thanks to Berin as well, for providing the first draft
> and getting me off my butt to finish it.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Some Pointers for updating to Apache 2.0 license
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
> For those who have not seen it - there are some guidelines (thanks to
> Roy!) on applying the 2.0 license to code at :
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
Not just me -- thanks to Berin as well, for providing the first draft
and getting me off my butt to finish it.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org