You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> on 2002/06/26 12:01:46 UTC
Re: cvs commit: jakarta-avalon/src/java/org/apache/avalon/framework/thread
SingleThreaded.java ThreadSafe.java
-1
The small license doesn't protect us effectively.
Following the cleanup of jars, Cocoon changed this license for the same
reason.
You haven't -1d the commit Berin did.
If you don't like this, ask the PMC.
Please revert this commit.
donaldp@apache.org wrote:
> donaldp 2002/06/26 02:22:20
>
> Modified: . LICENSE.txt
> src/java/org/apache/avalon/framework CascadingError.java
> CascadingException.java
> CascadingRuntimeException.java
> CascadingThrowable.java Enum.java
> ExceptionUtil.java ValuedEnum.java Version.java
> src/java/org/apache/avalon/framework/activity
> Disposable.java Executable.java Initializable.java
...
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: License Header.
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>
> IANAL.
>
> I would like as short a message as possible. I would also like a lawyer
> to decide which message is satisfactory (are you a lawyer). If there is
> no decisive assessment as to what is safe, I would like to be on the
> good side of safe.
>
> I do *not* think that this discussion should take place on avalon-dev. I
> object to voting on the subject where it is apparantly unclear what
> choices have been given to us by the PMC, if we indeed have a choice.
>
> This is not something for a subproject to decide. Any change from
> current standard jakarta practice (and I think the short version is
> common) should be discussed in the appropriate forum.
Agreed. Any legal decision *must* take place at the PMC level.
This community (nor a single committer or ASF member) doesn't have the
legal right to change the policy of the Jakarta PMC and the Jakarta PMC
(along with all other PMCs) was specifically instructed *not* to allow
licensing boilerplating *before* the Apache 2.0 license was ratified by
the ASF Board.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not: this is *NOT* something we
control.
The ASF gives legal protection to you and the ASF works really hard (and
pays laywers sometimes!) to test legal decisions.
If you want to remain under the ASF umbrella, you have to follow its
rules.
If you don't like such policies, you can either fight to change them or
leave. Up to you.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: License Header.
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> If people are dead set against the long form, then the modified
> short form would be a comfortable compromize.
Berin, the ASF has a specific policy: only code under the apache license
is developped on the apache CVS.
And the Apache license 1.1 was not designed to be equally protecting
from a legal standpoint if used in boilerplated form (unlike the GPL and
the Apache license 2.0 which were designed with *that* in mind).
Result: the ASF board, to avoid confusion, wants everybody to stick with
the full license until the new license is out.
Now: nobody here has the power to change that decision and if he wants
to challenge it (I tried in the past with Cocoon and failed), waste your
energy and ask "board@apache.org".
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: License Header.
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
> IANAL.
>
> I would like as short a message as possible. I would also
> like a lawyer to decide which message is satisfactory (are
> you a lawyer). If there is no decisive assessment as to what
> is safe, I would like to be on the good side of safe.
>
> I do *not* think that this discussion should take place on
> avalon-dev. I object to voting on the subject where it is
> apparantly unclear what choices have been given to us by the
> PMC, if we indeed have a choice.
>
> This is not something for a subproject to decide. Any change
> from current standard jakarta practice (and I think the short
> version is
> common) should be discussed in the appropriate forum.
My point is this:
1) Peter just doesn't want a long header. I don't blame him,
but the license is not *that* long.
2) The short form of the license *does not* address the viewing
of that java source outside of a distribution. We have a
way of looking at the source code here in Apache land without
seeing the LICENSE.txt file.
Resolution:
A) Use the long header anyway.
B) Use the modified short form that points the reader to the
license even if the file is separated from the distribution.
It's a touchy subject, I realize. The fact is most Apache source
code has the long form. We are one of the last remaining holdouts.
I honestly think the short form as written does not cover our
butts sufficiently. The modified short form does a better job (it
provides the same information, but in a better way).
If people are dead set against the long form, then the modified
short form would be a comfortable compromize.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: License Header.
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
IANAL.
I would like as short a message as possible. I would also like a lawyer
to decide which message is satisfactory (are you a lawyer). If there is
no decisive assessment as to what is safe, I would like to be on the
good side of safe.
I do *not* think that this discussion should take place on avalon-dev. I
object to voting on the subject where it is apparantly unclear what
choices have been given to us by the PMC, if we indeed have a choice.
This is not something for a subproject to decide. Any change from
current standard jakarta practice (and I think the short version is
common) should be discussed in the appropriate forum.
regards,
- Leo Simons
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 15:15, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > > The small license doesn't protect us effectively.
> >
> > Thats false.
>
> The small license text *does* need to be modified.
>
> /*
> * Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
> *
> * This software is published under the terms of the Apache Software
> License
> * version 1.1, a copy of which has been included with this distribution
> in
> * the LICENSE.txt file.
> */
>
>
> In order for me to be satisfied with the boiler plate, we either need
> the
> full license, or we need to update this text (making it a little
> longer):
>
> /*
> * Copyright (C) 2002 by The Apache Software Foundation.
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * This software is licensed under the terms and conditions of the
> Apache
> * Software License version 1.1. A copy of the license has been
> included
> * with this distribution in the LICENSE.txt file. In the event that
> you
> * did not receive this source code in a distribution, you may read the
> * license online at http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/license.html.
> *
> * This software is provided "AS IS", and the Apache Software Foundation
> * will not be held liable for its use or misuse. Full disclosure is in
> * the afformentioned license.
> */
>
>
> The key differences are:
>
> 1) Date. Copyright law only protects you if you can prove prior art.
> The date is a critical piece of information to prove that point.
>
> 2) Instructions to find the license do not assume that the source was
> obtained as part of a distribution. WebCVS, or sending the code
> via email pulls the source code from its original context.
>
> 3) Reminder of the limited liability clause in the license.
>
>
> If we go to a short license, I highly recommend covering our butts with
> the longer "short" version above.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
License Header.
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > The small license doesn't protect us effectively.
>
> Thats false.
The small license text *does* need to be modified.
/*
* Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
*
* This software is published under the terms of the Apache Software
License
* version 1.1, a copy of which has been included with this distribution
in
* the LICENSE.txt file.
*/
In order for me to be satisfied with the boiler plate, we either need
the
full license, or we need to update this text (making it a little
longer):
/*
* Copyright (C) 2002 by The Apache Software Foundation.
* All rights reserved.
*
* This software is licensed under the terms and conditions of the
Apache
* Software License version 1.1. A copy of the license has been
included
* with this distribution in the LICENSE.txt file. In the event that
you
* did not receive this source code in a distribution, you may read the
* license online at http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/license.html.
*
* This software is provided "AS IS", and the Apache Software Foundation
* will not be held liable for its use or misuse. Full disclosure is in
* the afformentioned license.
*/
The key differences are:
1) Date. Copyright law only protects you if you can prove prior art.
The date is a critical piece of information to prove that point.
2) Instructions to find the license do not assume that the source was
obtained as part of a distribution. WebCVS, or sending the code
via email pulls the source code from its original context.
3) Reminder of the limited liability clause in the license.
If we go to a short license, I highly recommend covering our butts with
the longer "short" version above.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: cvs commit: jakarta-avalon/src/java/org/apache/avalon/framework/thread SingleThreaded.java ThreadSafe.java
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> The small license doesn't protect us effectively.
Thats false.
> Following the cleanup of jars, Cocoon changed this license for the same
> reason.
>
> You haven't -1d the commit Berin did.
just did.
> If you don't like this, ask the PMC.
>
> Please revert this commit.
Not a chance in hell.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--------------------------------
My opinions may have changed,
but not the fact that I am right
--------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>