Licence in build.*

["Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>]

I have just noticed that there is no licence in build.xml, build.bat or 
build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we have a dispensation?
-- 
Peter B. West  http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html


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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:

> Oh, good--we're in agreement here.  (Usually not good for one to argue
> too much with the President, non-profit or not ;)

You are safer off ignoring that silly hat of mine altogether most of the
time - and consider me just one of your peers (though perhaps more
obnoxious than most); until such moment I am actually wearing the hat
explictly.

The latter is generally signaled by a different 'From: dirkx@apache.org'
and a clear .signature at the bottom :-)

But seriously - if you want the authoritative board@ answer on anything
_SPECIFIC_, checked with our tamed legal experts, then do let me/board@
know. The tigher the question, the quicker/better the answer. But given
the particulars in this case - I thoughd we'd be better off with an answer
about the general principles.

Dw.


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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>]

Oh, good--we're in agreement here.  (Usually not good
for one to argue too much with the President,
non-profit or not ;)

Glen

--- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>
wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> 
> > clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
> > project."
> 
> Well - at the very least it is more each and every
> 'granule' which the
> committer community (i.e the developers) would
> consider its work or its
> creation. So at the same time one has some leeway to
> ignore a file which
> has no "real" content; say a 'runme.sh' file which
> only has the text 'java
> -cp foo.jar foo.Main' or something.
> 
> But the same time the ASF as a whole should make
> sure that every 'bit' for
> which it can be held accountable is under a proper
> license (its own
> license or that of a third party we consider
> acceptible).
> 
> So it is a puzzle from both directions.
> 
> Dw.
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email:
> fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:

> clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
> project."

Well - at the very least it is more each and every 'granule' which the
committer community (i.e the developers) would consider its work or its
creation. So at the same time one has some leeway to ignore a file which
has no "real" content; say a 'runme.sh' file which only has the text 'java
-cp foo.jar foo.Main' or something.

But the same time the ASF as a whole should make sure that every 'bit' for
which it can be held accountable is under a proper license (its own
license or that of a third party we consider acceptible).

So it is a puzzle from both directions.

Dw.


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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>]

Also references on that Wiki page to "source code"
files and "files part of a project's codebase" [i.e.,
those that need the license] should be further
clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
project."

Glen

--- Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:
> Wow, mails like this make me find new hope. Maybe I
> should resume my
> crusade to improve licensing policies at Apache and
> clarify open
> questions. 
> 
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
> updated with this
> new piece of information (copyright years, which was
> an open question
> there).
> 
> On 06.07.2003 17:45:13 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> > 
> > > their to-do lists and related files--so if this
> is an
> > > oversight with us--so it is with everyone.
> > 
> > Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP.
> We're an open source
> > project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they
> can in making sure that
> > we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect.
> > 
> > Just to be clear; until we have the new license
> completed (any time now)
> > each and every file which the committer communit
> would consider its work
> > or its creation should have the ASF license and
> (c) right. Ideally each
> > year in which active work was done on that file
> should be listed in the
> > (c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a
> substansive change every 6
> > years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on
> this year after being
> > stable for 4 years.
> > 
> > Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of
> explicit license in each
> > and every file will in some cases be condensed to
> just a URL reference.
> > Guidelines for this will be released around that
> time. In any case, each
> > file will still need the (c)  right claim, and in
> this case the URL.
> > 
> > Note that in some cases it may be desireable to
> have the license at the
> > end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or
> it must be reformatted,
> > have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into
> UTF8 or have different
> > line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just
> to make sure that no one
> > can claim that they did not see an ASF license
> when they snarfed or copied
> > just a few files.
> > 
> > Should you worry about size increase; feel free to
> do a small experiment;
> > zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license.
> As you may see it
> > compresses very very well.
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email:
> fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

Wow, mails like this make me find new hope. Maybe I should resume my
crusade to improve licensing policies at Apache and clarify open
questions. 

http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing updated with this
new piece of information (copyright years, which was an open question
there).

On 06.07.2003 17:45:13 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> 
> > their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an
> > oversight with us--so it is with everyone.
> 
> Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source
> project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that
> we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect.
> 
> Just to be clear; until we have the new license completed (any time now)
> each and every file which the committer communit would consider its work
> or its creation should have the ASF license and (c) right. Ideally each
> year in which active work was done on that file should be listed in the
> (c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a substansive change every 6
> years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on this year after being
> stable for 4 years.
> 
> Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of explicit license in each
> and every file will in some cases be condensed to just a URL reference.
> Guidelines for this will be released around that time. In any case, each
> file will still need the (c)  right claim, and in this case the URL.
> 
> Note that in some cases it may be desireable to have the license at the
> end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or it must be reformatted,
> have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into UTF8 or have different
> line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just to make sure that no one
> can claim that they did not see an ASF license when they snarfed or copied
> just a few files.
> 
> Should you worry about size increase; feel free to do a small experiment;
> zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license. As you may see it
> compresses very very well.


Jeremias Maerki


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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:

> their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an
> oversight with us--so it is with everyone.

Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source
project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that
we dot our i's and cross our 't's in this respect.

Just to be clear; until we have the new license completed (any time now)
each and every file which the committer communit would consider its work
or its creation should have the ASF license and (c) right. Ideally each
year in which active work was done on that file should be listed in the
(c) right line. E.g. 1997-2003 if there was a substansive change every 6
years or 1998, 2003 if the file was only worked on this year after being
stable for 4 years.

Once we have the new license the 50 odd lines of explicit license in each
and every file will in some cases be condensed to just a URL reference.
Guidelines for this will be released around that time. In any case, each
file will still need the (c)  right claim, and in this case the URL.

Note that in some cases it may be desireable to have the license at the
end of the file, rather than at the beginning. Or it must be reformatted,
have '#', '//' or '/*' front of it, be turned into UTF8 or have different
line endings. All that is fine; the idea is just to make sure that no one
can claim that they did not see an ASF license when they snarfed or copied
just a few files.

Should you worry about size increase; feel free to do a small experiment;
zip or GZ a tar/zipfile with and without license. As you may see it
compresses very very well.

Thanks!

Dw


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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>]

This may need more work before proceeding---I've
looked at Xalan, Cocoon, Axis--none of them are
licensing their shell scripts and batch files--nor
their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an
oversight with us--so it is with everyone.

Two (Xalan and Axis) do have a copyright statement on
their Ant build.xml; however, that's not the Apache
license but a standard copyright notice that would
appear to prevent users from modifying them--I don't
think this is what is wanted either.  

We probably need Apache-wide direction on this, and
FOP should follow what is done by the more established
projects such as Xalan, Struts, etc.  If FOP is to
actually move our, say, 3 and 5 line shell scripts to
54 and 56 lines, respectively, *all* the projects
should be doing this--not just those who ask about it.
 

Another issue--perhaps the Apache license will need to
be reformatted into official versions that will work
with DOS batch scripts, Unix Shell scripts, to-do list
text files and XML documents, because the current
license appears designed for Java/C++ source only. 
(OTOH, such versions may already exist--I don't know.)

Glen


--- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Please Add ! And thanks for noticing this.
> 
> Dw
> 
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Peter B. West wrote:
> 
> > I have just noticed that there is no licence in
> build.xml, build.bat or
> > build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we
> have a dispensation?
> >
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email:
> fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

Re: Licence in build.*

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@apache.org>]

Please Add ! And thanks for noticing this.

Dw

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Peter B. West wrote:

> I have just noticed that there is no licence in build.xml, build.bat or
> build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we have a dispensation?
>


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