Licensing of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4?

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

Something that recently came up on the Subversion list is how to properly 
acknowledge the ASF since it includes APR and APR-util.  Greg, Brian, and 
myself have been educating them on what the AL 2.0 license means and where the 
acknowledgements should go.

However, Greg brought up the case of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4 in apr and 
apr-util.  We intended for those to be copied into the source trees but I 
don't think we meant for that to trigger the inclusion of the full NOTICE 
file.  I'd think if a project includes any *other* source file, they should be 
forced to include the full NOTICE and LICENSE files.  And, as well, if they 
(re)distribute APR and APR-util, they'd need to include NOTICE and LICENSE.

So, I'd like to discuss our intent if a project copies those two special files 
into their tree.  My initial thought is to 'public domain' those two files. 
For example, autoconf has exceptions for files it copies into the tree for 
precisely this reason.  configure has:

# This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

config.{sub|guess} has:

# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

As a solution, the Creative Commons Public Domain dedication comes to mind 
(<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>.  I'm not sure if that 
goes too far, but perhaps not.

Thoughts?  -- justin

Re: Licensing of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4?

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:34:56PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
>...
> > As a solution, the Creative Commons Public Domain dedication comes to
> > mind (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>.  I'm not
> > sure if that goes too far, but perhaps not.
> > 
> > Thoughts?  -- justin
> 
> +1.  Oh, want something more specific than "+1"? :-)  How about this:
> 
>    # This file is in the public domain; the Apache Software Foundation 
>    # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

Looks good as a start. How about if the statement includes all parts
aspects of copyright (i.e. public performance, etc).

Hmm. Section 2 of the Apache License looks pretty good. Mebbe we can say
it is subject to only that:

    2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
    this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
    worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
    copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
    display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and
    such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

Of course, then we have section 3 to deal with (patent licenses). So just
section 2 might not be workable.

I'm thinking we might want to stick with the Apache License, but state
that certain pieces do not apply. Specifically, I think it may only be 4d
that should be stricken.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Licensing of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4?

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 01:34, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> > Thoughts?  -- justin
> 
> +1.  Oh, want something more specific than "+1"? :-)  How about this:
> 
>    # This file is in the public domain; the Apache Software Foundation 
>    # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.
> 
> -Karl

+1.

Sander

Re: Licensing of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4?

[kf...@collab.net]

Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> So, I'd like to discuss our intent if a project copies those two
> special files into their tree.  My initial thought is to 'public
> domain' those two files. For example, autoconf has exceptions for
> files it copies into the tree for precisely this reason.  configure
> has:
> 
> # This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
> # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.
> 
> config.{sub|guess} has:
> 
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
> 
> As a solution, the Creative Commons Public Domain dedication comes to
> mind (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>.  I'm not
> sure if that goes too far, but perhaps not.
> 
> Thoughts?  -- justin

+1.  Oh, want something more specific than "+1"? :-)  How about this:

   # This file is in the public domain; the Apache Software Foundation 
   # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

-Karl