You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lenya.apache.org by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org> on 2003/09/18 18:49:29 UTC
Apologies
I really would like to apologize for the mess re the licenses of Xopus
and Bitflux Editor.
There was no intention to do any harm.
I have to admit that I made a big mistake by trying to convince people
going the Open Source path.
Well, I probably would do it again ...
Again, apologies to everyone who was involved into this.
Thanks
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: "Bitflux open-sourced the fully functional Editor under the Apache
License" (Re: Apologies)
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
On 9/20/03 9:10 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>Therefore please give proper
>>credits, like the current license asks for. It shouldn't be that
>>difficult to add the line:
>>"This software contains code developed by Bitflux GmbH"
>
>
> No, according to bitfluxeditor.org the software was released under "the
> Apache license":
>
> "The Bitflux Editor is Open Source since September 10, 2002. Bitflux
> open-sourced the fully functional Editor (with tables, lists, picture upload
> etc.) under the *Apache License*." (http://bitfluxeditor.org/ - my emphasis)
Sorry, bad wording from our side. After all, doesn't matter what's
written in this announcement, but what's written in the license.
I changed the wording now
chregu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
"Bitflux open-sourced the fully functional Editor under the Apache License" (Re: Apologies)
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
> Therefore please give proper
> credits, like the current license asks for. It shouldn't be that
> difficult to add the line:
> "This software contains code developed by Bitflux GmbH"
No, according to bitfluxeditor.org the software was released under "the
Apache license":
"The Bitflux Editor is Open Source since September 10, 2002. Bitflux
open-sourced the fully functional Editor (with tables, lists, picture upload
etc.) under the *Apache License*." (http://bitfluxeditor.org/ - my emphasis)
Thanks,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org>.
Christian Stocker wrote:
>
> This entry is about me. It's not what the lisence asks for. Look,
> Bitflux GmbH paid me for doing BXE.
what about the money from University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology and Wyona?
> I did not do that in my free time or as a private project or whatever.
> Therefore please give proper credits, like the current license asks
> for. It shouldn't be that difficult to add the line:
> "This software contains code developed by Bitflux GmbH"
I think we first need to resolve this issue, because I believe that
"Bitflux GmbH" needs to be replaced by "Bitflux Editor", whereas
"Bitflux Editor" is supposed to be a non-profit organisation.
But sure, let's meet with University of Zurich and Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, take a look at the contract and stop this
discussion here.
<snip />
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, I am really looking forward to this, because BXENG is so much
>> better than the "old" version and all credits goes to you,
>> because you are the one who is writing it.
>
>
> and Bitflux GmbH paid it (you get the idea what i want to say...)
What about the money being paid by the University of Zurich through
Wyona for this new version?
In the end it's not about who paid for it, but who owns the copyright.
The contract will hopefully tell ...
<snip />
>
>
> Nice evening nevertheless and I'd love to finally play soccer with you
> (once promised, still never fullfilled by me) ;)
yeah, looking forward to playing soccer :-)
Good Night
Michael
>
>
> chregu
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
Hi
On 9/19/03 11:34 PM, Michael Wechner wrote:
>
> I haven't read your license carefully until you have posted the
> "feature" part into the lenya-dev mailing list.
> I don't think the entity "Bitflux GmbH" should show up in this license,
> but only the non-profit organization "Bitflux Editor".
>
> So again, is this just a typo, or did you screw us, or what else? (but I
> don't expect you to answer this here)
As you said, we do not have to and moreover should not discuss that
here. As shown once more in the last 2 days, email discussions can get
very lengthy, frustrating and non-productive. So let's met personally as
proposed by roger today.
> 1) Take a look at the credits page:
> http://cocoon.apache.org/lenya/project/acknowledgements.html
> If I remember correctly then I put you (and Lon) there from day one
> (you might have to check the CVS)
This entry is about me. It's not what the lisence asks for. Look,
Bitflux GmbH paid me for doing BXE. I did not do that in my free time
or as a private project or whatever. Therefore please give proper
credits, like the current license asks for. It shouldn't be that
difficult to add the line:
"This software contains code developed by Bitflux GmbH"
> 2) At the bottom: http://cocoon.apache.org/lenya/project/license.html
> Also from day one I think
Same as above.
Additionally, our license is still missing in the legal directory (It's
not of absolute urgency to me, but you asked for it. )
> 3) If you try editing a page within Lenya and you open it with one of
> the great WYSIWYG editors, what does it say?
> .... This is Bitflux Editor or this is Xopus ... Do you really
> believe people don't see that?
nope, and the new BXE has an even more prominent splash screen ;)
> So, what do you expect us to do (beside adding it correctly to the legal
> directory and including this directory into the snapshots)?
>
> Maybe saying something like
>
> "Hey, this is Bitflux Editor and Xopus being fed with content by Lenya!"
>
> on the Lenya Homepage?
See above. Just proper credits on the credits page and in the legal
directory.
>
> Please apologize for being cynical, but c'mon ...
>
>> I would have liked to discuss that with you (and of course lenya-dev),
>> how exactly this attribution should look like. But somehow, it's too
>> exhausting to go through all this with the current state of affairs.
>>
>> Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include Bitflux
>> Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
>> arise with BXE and Lenya.
>
>
>
> yes, I am really looking forward to this, because BXENG is so much
> better than the "old" version and all credits goes to you,
> because you are the one who is writing it.
and Bitflux GmbH paid it (you get the idea what i want to say...)
Concerning your question about announcing it:
I announced it somehow (not really officially but someone asked for it)
yesterday on bx-editor-dev. So I will repeat that here as well.
But please read this before:
- It's ALPHA software
- It has very well known bugs
- Some features are still missing
- And it's badly delayed ;)
Nevertheless, you can see it here:
http://trash.chregu.tv/bxeng/
and if you want to download it, test it yourself or even develop on it
get it with
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.bitflux.ch:/var/lib/cvs/editor co bxeng
(no password)
But if you want to test a much better BXE, then i'd advice you to wait
another week or two ;)
> But I am still convinced it makes sense to keep it separately
But the "other" Christians point about controlling the deployed version
should be considered as well.
Nice evening nevertheless and I'd love to finally play soccer with you
(once promised, still never fullfilled by me) ;)
chregu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org>.
Christian Stocker wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> I really do not understand you...
>
> Lon wrote you (also in behalf of us) on 28 August a mail about the
> license problems on your side (which should have gone to lenya-dev, I
> realize that now). We contacted you 2 weeks later again. But you never
> answered. Why o why?
I did answer Lon's email which were CCed to your colleague Roger
Fischer, and I told both of them that I will
add the licenses to the legal directory and also make them shown within
the snapshots. I forgot about the snapshots,
so I received another email from Lon (CCing Roger Fischer) where he
asked me to please do it and I answered him that I will do it as soon as
I will find some time. So I modified the build process last week in
order to have the licenses included, which
I unfortunately didn't check carefully and forgot to announce to Lon and
Roger Fischer. So, what emails are you refering to?
>
>
> If you had a problem with our license (or better said the attribution
> note), why just didn't you say so?
I haven't read your license carefully until you have posted the
"feature" part into the lenya-dev mailing list.
I don't think the entity "Bitflux GmbH" should show up in this license,
but only the non-profit organization "Bitflux Editor".
So again, is this just a typo, or did you screw us, or what else? (but I
don't expect you to answer this here)
> We maybe could have solved this issue
> and as I said repeatingly on this thread, we are open to discuss it.
we still can discuss it, but it doesn't belong to this mailing list.
It's something between
Bitflux, University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and
Wyona.
>
>
> If you want to remove Bitflux Editor from Lenya. Fine, go ahead, I can't
> do anything to stop you.
I am waiting for the votes of the developers ...
> I just think, it would be a big loss for the
> project. And yes, if you're talking about the "old" Editor,
yes, I am talking about the "old" Editor which is currently being
shipped with Lenya
> once the new
> Bitflux Editor is ready to deploy with lenya, I'm more than happy to
> support your proposal to remove the _old_ code.
As you might have seen from Christian Kreutz's recent email (or other
past emails), the current CVS version
of Lenya doesn't work properly with the "old" Bitflux version and nobody
really seems to care fixing it.
Personally I am focusing on the HTML Form Editor, the new Bitflux Editor
(bxeng), Mozile (itself) and Midas.
This is the reason why I would like to remove it and it has nothing to
do with the licensing issues this thread is all about,
although it would kind of solve the licensing issue with regard to the
"old" Bitflux version.
>
>
> But this whole discussion was just one of those days, when I
> sometimes think, it's not worth anymore to do Open Source projects. And
> that is what me really makes sad (But I got much worse mails. See
> http://trash.chregu.tv/instructions.txt if you're fed up with this
> thread and want to have a good laugh ;) )
yeah, that's funny indeed :-)
>
>
> Of course, I will not stop doing open source projects, 'cause there were
> other, very refreshing "events" about this in the recent days ;)
>
> We invested and still are inversing a lot of time and energy in
> developing Bitflux Editor and all we asked for was a bit of
> attribution to our side.
1) Take a look at the credits page:
http://cocoon.apache.org/lenya/project/acknowledgements.html
If I remember correctly then I put you (and Lon) there from day one
(you might have to check the CVS)
2) At the bottom: http://cocoon.apache.org/lenya/project/license.html
Also from day one I think
3) If you try editing a page within Lenya and you open it with one of
the great WYSIWYG editors, what does it say?
.... This is Bitflux Editor or this is Xopus ... Do you really
believe people don't see that?
So, what do you expect us to do (beside adding it correctly to the legal
directory and including this directory into the snapshots)?
Maybe saying something like
"Hey, this is Bitflux Editor and Xopus being fed with content by Lenya!"
on the Lenya Homepage?
Please apologize for being cynical, but c'mon ...
> I would have liked to discuss that with you (and of course lenya-dev),
> how exactly this attribution should look like. But somehow, it's too
> exhausting to go through all this with the current state of affairs.
>
> Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include Bitflux
> Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
> arise with BXE and Lenya.
yes, I am really looking forward to this, because BXENG is so much
better than the "old" version and all credits goes to you,
because you are the one who is writing it.
But I am still convinced it makes sense to keep it separately
>
>
> chregu
>
> PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does solve
> your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
I don't know for sure (probably one of these nifty legal problems which
lawyers could talk about for hours)
But it just seems to me that it would be kind of practical.
We could also check for Bitflux Editor (or Xopus) being installed and if
not, then telling people to download them
from the appropriate websites or helping them by offering a "tool". So
what about that? Is this less "bundled"?
Well, anyway, I would like to let you know (and Lon), that I don't take
this personal at all and I still highly respect
the both of you and I am looking forward to another soccer game :-)
Thanks
Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
> > I think this paragraph is in part invalid ("mentioning features"). The
> > license probably was not written by a lawyer .
>
> See http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0
>
> I don't know, who wrote this license, but you certainly get the idea ;)
Let me correct myself. I should have written: "The license probably was not
written by a German lawyer" ;-)
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org>.
Christian Stocker wrote:
> hi
>
>> On a technical level, I'm wondering whether it is good or bad to
>> redistribute BXE with Lenya. Packaging it separately enables people
>> to make releases of the Lenya/BXE 'integration kit', of Lenya, and
>> BXE, independent one from another. Pardon my ignorance, but how is it
>> packaged now?
>
>
> the old BXE code is in the lenya CVS. The new one isn't, since it is
> not really released yet
btw, when is that going to happen? C'mon show it to the world, it's a
great editor!
>
>
> From a technical point of view, it's no problem with the new code to
> download it directly from our server. At the moment.
> The new BXE is currently developed with Lenya as main platform in
> mind, since we have a contract to fullfill in this regard. But this
> might change in the future and Lenya would maybe have to patch little
> things to get the best out of BXE.
As long as files are XML, it's no problem patching them, doesn't matter
during the Build Process, or "Deploy into Lenya Process" or whatever ...
Thanks
Michael
> I don't expect that, but it could be possible (the new BXE has an
> event system, which can be customized to ones need for example).
> Therefore maybe it's better to have it's own version in lenya CVS.
>
> I can't say, which is the best way to do it technically. One solution
> could also be, that BXE will be downloaded during build process (if
> someone wants to build it for himself and gets it out of CVS), but is
> also packaged with the binaries resp. source-tgz to get a working
> Lenya out of the Box.
>
> Just my 2 cents ;)
>
> chregu
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
hi
> On a technical level, I'm wondering whether it is good or bad to
> redistribute BXE with Lenya. Packaging it separately enables people to
> make releases of the Lenya/BXE 'integration kit', of Lenya, and BXE,
> independent one from another. Pardon my ignorance, but how is it
> packaged now?
the old BXE code is in the lenya CVS. The new one isn't, since it is not
really released yet
From a technical point of view, it's no problem with the new code to
download it directly from our server. At the moment.
The new BXE is currently developed with Lenya as main platform in mind,
since we have a contract to fullfill in this regard. But this might
change in the future and Lenya would maybe have to patch little things
to get the best out of BXE. I don't expect that, but it could be
possible (the new BXE has an event system, which can be customized to
ones need for example). Therefore maybe it's better to have it's own
version in lenya CVS.
I can't say, which is the best way to do it technically. One solution
could also be, that BXE will be downloaded during build process (if
someone wants to build it for himself and gets it out of CVS), but is
also packaged with the binaries resp. source-tgz to get a working Lenya
out of the Box.
Just my 2 cents ;)
chregu
--
christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich
phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71
http://www.bitflux.ch | chregu@bitflux.ch | gnupg-keyid 0x5CE1DECB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Christian Stocker wrote:
> Anyway, I apologize, if I made the impression, that Bitflux wants more
> than just that and piggyback on someone elses work. And I hope, this
> mail clarifies it a little bit and brings this discussion down again to
> a less emotional level.
Your case is entirely different than Xopus', and I guess everybody is
aware of that. I'm fully aware of your good intentions, don't you worry.
On a technical level, I'm wondering whether it is good or bad to
redistribute BXE with Lenya. Packaging it separately enables people to
make releases of the Lenya/BXE 'integration kit', of Lenya, and BXE,
independent one from another. Pardon my ignorance, but how is it
packaged now?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
On 9/19/03 2:00 PM, Steven Noels wrote:
> Christian Stocker wrote:
>
>> I just wondered, if an automatic download during the build process
>> does not count as "distributing with the software". That's what
>> Michael proposed. Or differently said: Does something change from a
>> legal point of view, if the software comes with the download (tgz or
>> cvs) or if it's automatically downloaded and installed during the
>> build process.
>
>
> If the process of downloading would indicate this to the user,
> explaining him that this is non-ASF software with a different license,
> it would be an entirely different case.
yes. But I was speaking of a fully automatic download during build
process, which wouldn't make a difference to me to redistributing it
directly from apache.
> You could still trademark the
> BitFlux name and put up a requirement that simply 'using' the name in
> that download page would also require credits, well, you're kinda
> stretching it.
No. Of course, I don't require credits for that.
> It is important to make the distinction between inclusion
> and redistribution, and referring. To make things harder on us, you
> could as well change your license to LGPL (although it is ASF policy to
> not use LGPL libs anyhow) - there, the process of importing (or using)
> libs becomes even more murky, let alone the redistribution (i.e. what
> happens if I repackage and redistribute a binary version of Lenya, with
> its included libs - am I still allowed, credits given, to do that?)
We do not intend to change the license-model. And you don't have to give
credits with LGPL software ;)
> Your patience and careful thinking in all this is appreciated, and I
> personally wouldn't object against such a "little credit" note.
Let me clarify all this: We (and Xopus) asked for including our
"advertising clauses" on the Lenya Webpage and Distribution. Not less
and not more.
A lot of people agreed with that. But it got somehow murky, when the
discussion came up, that Lenya should remove BXE alltogether, 'cause of
this issues. This is, what me got a little bit nervous. "Better remove
it than giving proper attribution" isn't the kind of answer I expected ;)
Anyway, I apologize, if I made the impression, that Bitflux wants more
than just that and piggyback on someone elses work. And I hope, this
mail clarifies it a little bit and brings this discussion down again to
a less emotional level.
chregu
--
christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich
phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71
http://www.bitflux.ch | chregu@bitflux.ch | gnupg-keyid 0x5CE1DECB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Christian Stocker wrote:
> I just wondered, if an automatic download during the build process does
> not count as "distributing with the software". That's what Michael
> proposed. Or differently said: Does something change from a legal point
> of view, if the software comes with the download (tgz or cvs) or if it's
> automatically downloaded and installed during the build process.
If the process of downloading would indicate this to the user,
explaining him that this is non-ASF software with a different license,
it would be an entirely different case. You could still trademark the
BitFlux name and put up a requirement that simply 'using' the name in
that download page would also require credits, well, you're kinda
stretching it. It is important to make the distinction between inclusion
and redistribution, and referring. To make things harder on us, you
could as well change your license to LGPL (although it is ASF policy to
not use LGPL libs anyhow) - there, the process of importing (or using)
libs becomes even more murky, let alone the redistribution (i.e. what
happens if I repackage and redistribute a binary version of Lenya, with
its included libs - am I still allowed, credits given, to do that?)
> And I'm fully aware that I can't force Lenya to include the advertising
> clause, if only the interface to Bitflux Editor is shipped with it
> (whatever shipped now exactly means). I never said something contrary to
> that. A little "Thanks to Bitflux" would then be nice nevertheless ;)
Your patience and careful thinking in all this is appreciated, and I
personally wouldn't object against such a "little credit" note.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> In your case, the act of download doesn't pose any restrictions to the
> person downloading, nor to the downloading software. So, it's
> perfectly legal.
>
> Now, while legal, it's clearly a slap in your face.
well, in this situation I never meant it this way, but rather as a
user-friendly alternative.
Thanks
Michael
<snip />
> Stefano.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
Hi
On 9/19/03 7:30 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 13:52 Europe/Rome, Christian Stocker wrote:
>
>> I just wondered, if an automatic download during the build process
>> does not count as "distributing with the software".
>
>
> "distribution with the software" means that "comes with the software".
> There is nothing in the license that says about "downloaded from your
> machine on behalf of the distributed software"
Yeah, we could maybe argue about that over and over (and I don't think
the Sun example does count, since that is a completely different
license), but i wouldn't mind if we stop here, because :
> In your case, the act of download doesn't pose any restrictions to the
> person downloading, nor to the downloading software. So, it's perfectly
> legal.
>
> Now, while legal, it's clearly a slap in your face.
>
> But this is an entirely different thing and must be dealt with with
> common sense, not with legal threats.
You brought it perfectly to the point. Thanks.
(And I never wanted to threaten anyone, it was just an issue we'd liked
to have resolved at some point.. )
>
>> Concerning the remark by Andreas in another mail:
>>
>> > But read this:
>> >
>> > "3. All advertising materials mentioning features or
>> > use of this software must display the following
>> > acknowledgment: 'This product includes software
>> > developed by Bitflux GmbH (http://www.bitflux.ch)' "
>> >
>> > (See http://bitfluxeditor.org/home/license/)
>> >
>> > I think this paragraph is in part invalid ("mentioning features"). The
>> > license probably was not written by a lawyer .
>>
>> See http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0
>>
>> I don't know, who wrote this license, but you certainly get the idea ;)
>
>
> This is the "infamous" BSD advertising clause. It was written by the
> Regents of the University of California at Berkeley decades ago and it's
> considered obsolete and impractical (even by them, since they couldn't
> enforce it in court).
Yes, we realized that the wording in this license is a little bit
"flacky" and are considering changing it to version 1.1 of the Apache
Software License.
> A little secret here: everytime apache tried to "enforce" the
> advertising clause, it got bad feelings. Everytime we gently informed
> people that they might have overlooked the license, they apologized and
> did promptly.
>
> It's a matter of common sense people.
>
> Giving the wrong impression is enough for a project to throw away code
> and rewrite it (writing code, for a big community, is not that big of a
> deal).
>
> At the end, the result of being harsh to somebody in order to get due
> credit might result in the code being removed completely (and the credit
> lost with it).
If my mails made a harsh impression, they were never intented to be like
that. I always wanted to resolve the issue in a friendly manner and I
think, it's still possible (and still very easy ;) )
chregu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 13:52 Europe/Rome, Christian Stocker wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 9/19/03 12:07 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 07:51 Europe/Rome, Christian Stocker
>> wrote:
>>> We invested and still are inversing a lot of time and energy in
>>> developing Bitflux Editor and all we asked for was a bit of
>>> attribution to our side. I would have liked to discuss that with you
>>> (and of course lenya-dev), how exactly this attribution should look
>>> like. But somehow, it's too exhausting to go through all this with
>>> the current state of affairs.
>> The Cocoon PMC members and the Lenya developers said that all things
>> to comply to the license will be done ASAP.
>> How can you consider this "exhausting" is beyond my ability to
>> comprehend.
>
> I was mainly referring to Michaels answers, which were quite
> disappointing for me and not to the answers of the Cocoon PMC members,
> which I'd really appreciated. Sorry, if it made this impression.
No problem. I'm happy to read the correction.
>>> Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include
>>> Bitflux
>>> Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
>>> arise with BXE and Lenya.
>>>
>>> chregu
>>>
>>> PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does
>>> solve
>>> your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
>> Very wrong. The interfaces to Xopus and BitFlus were written by
>> Michael, so they don't belong to BitFlux, nor are covered by the
>> BitFlux license.
>
> never said anything else
>
>> The BSD license is *NOT* reciprocal. This means that it's entirely
>> possible to write software that *uses* your software, without having
>> my code forced to be released in your license.
> >
> > That is what the GPL family of licences does.
>
> Yes, I know that.
>
>> the BSD license forces the 'advertising clause' *only* when software
>> is included in the distribution, not when it's 'conntected' to
>> software that is not distributed alongside (as in this potential case
>> of lenya shipping with the bitflux interfaces but without the code).
>
> I just wondered, if an automatic download during the build process
> does not count as "distributing with the software".
"distribution with the software" means that "comes with the software".
There is nothing in the license that says about "downloaded from your
machine on behalf of the distributed software"
> That's what Michael proposed. Or differently said: Does something
> change from a legal point of view, if the software comes with the
> download (tgz or cvs) or if it's automatically downloaded and
> installed during the build process.
Yep, totally.
The above is, in fact, how Apache Maven works around legal issues with
the Sun licenses of many Java API which the ASF cannot redistribute
because it cannot (nor wants!) to comply to those licensing terms. [the
jars are hosted on ibiblio.org, not on the ASF infrastructure]
By downloading it, the user have to comply to the licensing terms (if
any), not the downloading software.
In your case, the act of download doesn't pose any restrictions to the
person downloading, nor to the downloading software. So, it's perfectly
legal.
Now, while legal, it's clearly a slap in your face.
But this is an entirely different thing and must be dealt with with
common sense, not with legal threats.
> Concerning the remark by Andreas in another mail:
>
> > But read this:
> >
> > "3. All advertising materials mentioning features or
> > use of this software must display the following
> > acknowledgment: 'This product includes software
> > developed by Bitflux GmbH (http://www.bitflux.ch)' "
> >
> > (See http://bitfluxeditor.org/home/license/)
> >
> > I think this paragraph is in part invalid ("mentioning features").
> The
> > license probably was not written by a lawyer .
>
> See http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0
>
> I don't know, who wrote this license, but you certainly get the idea ;)
This is the "infamous" BSD advertising clause. It was written by the
Regents of the University of California at Berkeley decades ago and
it's considered obsolete and impractical (even by them, since they
couldn't enforce it in court).
> And I'm fully aware that I can't force Lenya to include the
> advertising clause, if only the interface to Bitflux Editor is shipped
> with it (whatever shipped now exactly means).
"shipped" means "comes in the package". If it's not there, it's not
there. Period.
> I never said something contrary to that. A little "Thanks to Bitflux"
> would then be nice nevertheless ;)
As I said, the above is an entirely different matter.
A little secret here: everytime apache tried to "enforce" the
advertising clause, it got bad feelings. Everytime we gently informed
people that they might have overlooked the license, they apologized and
did promptly.
It's a matter of common sense people.
Giving the wrong impression is enough for a project to throw away code
and rewrite it (writing code, for a big community, is not that big of a
deal).
At the end, the result of being harsh to somebody in order to get due
credit might result in the code being removed completely (and the
credit lost with it).
First rule of community dynamics: under pressure, their non-linearity
increases, their predictability and rationality decreases.
> --
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
Hi
On 9/19/03 12:07 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 07:51 Europe/Rome, Christian Stocker wrote:
>
>> We invested and still are inversing a lot of time and energy in
>> developing Bitflux Editor and all we asked for was a bit of
>> attribution to our side. I would have liked to discuss that with you
>> (and of course lenya-dev), how exactly this attribution should look
>> like. But somehow, it's too exhausting to go through all this with the
>> current state of affairs.
>
>
> The Cocoon PMC members and the Lenya developers said that all things to
> comply to the license will be done ASAP.
>
> How can you consider this "exhausting" is beyond my ability to comprehend.
I was mainly referring to Michaels answers, which were quite
disappointing for me and not to the answers of the Cocoon PMC members,
which I'd really appreciated. Sorry, if it made this impression.
>> Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include Bitflux
>> Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
>> arise with BXE and Lenya.
>>
>> chregu
>>
>> PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does solve
>> your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
>
>
> Very wrong. The interfaces to Xopus and BitFlus were written by Michael,
> so they don't belong to BitFlux, nor are covered by the BitFlux license.
never said anything else
> The BSD license is *NOT* reciprocal. This means that it's entirely
> possible to write software that *uses* your software, without having my
> code forced to be released in your license.
>
> That is what the GPL family of licences does.
Yes, I know that.
> the BSD license forces the 'advertising clause' *only* when software is
> included in the distribution, not when it's 'conntected' to software
> that is not distributed alongside (as in this potential case of lenya
> shipping with the bitflux interfaces but without the code).
I just wondered, if an automatic download during the build process does
not count as "distributing with the software". That's what Michael
proposed. Or differently said: Does something change from a legal point
of view, if the software comes with the download (tgz or cvs) or if it's
automatically downloaded and installed during the build process.
Concerning the remark by Andreas in another mail:
> But read this:
>
> "3. All advertising materials mentioning features or
> use of this software must display the following
> acknowledgment: 'This product includes software
> developed by Bitflux GmbH (http://www.bitflux.ch)' "
>
> (See http://bitfluxeditor.org/home/license/)
>
> I think this paragraph is in part invalid ("mentioning features"). The
> license probably was not written by a lawyer .
See http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0
I don't know, who wrote this license, but you certainly get the idea ;)
And I'm fully aware that I can't force Lenya to include the advertising
clause, if only the interface to Bitflux Editor is shipped with it
(whatever shipped now exactly means). I never said something contrary to
that. A little "Thanks to Bitflux" would then be nice nevertheless ;)
chregu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
> > PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does solve
> > your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
>
> Very wrong. The interfaces to Xopus and BitFlus were written by
> Michael, so they don't belong to BitFlux, nor are covered by the
> BitFlux license.
But read this:
"3. All advertising materials mentioning features or
use of this software must display the following
acknowledgment: 'This product includes software
developed by Bitflux GmbH (http://www.bitflux.ch)' "
(See http://bitfluxeditor.org/home/license/)
I think this paragraph is in part invalid ("mentioning features"). The
license probably was not written by a lawyer ...
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 07:51 Europe/Rome, Christian Stocker wrote:
> We invested and still are inversing a lot of time and energy in
> developing Bitflux Editor and all we asked for was a bit of
> attribution to our side. I would have liked to discuss that with you
> (and of course lenya-dev), how exactly this attribution should look
> like. But somehow, it's too exhausting to go through all this with the
> current state of affairs.
The Cocoon PMC members and the Lenya developers said that all things to
comply to the license will be done ASAP.
How can you consider this "exhausting" is beyond my ability to
comprehend.
> Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include Bitflux
> Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
> arise with BXE and Lenya.
>
> chregu
>
> PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does solve
> your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
Very wrong. The interfaces to Xopus and BitFlus were written by
Michael, so they don't belong to BitFlux, nor are covered by the
BitFlux license.
The BSD license is *NOT* reciprocal. This means that it's entirely
possible to write software that *uses* your software, without having my
code forced to be released in your license.
That is what the GPL family of licences does.
the BSD license forces the 'advertising clause' *only* when software is
included in the distribution, not when it's 'conntected' to software
that is not distributed alongside (as in this potential case of lenya
shipping with the bitflux interfaces but without the code).
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Apologies
Posted by Christian Stocker <ch...@bitflux.ch>.
Hi Michael
I really do not understand you...
Lon wrote you (also in behalf of us) on 28 August a mail about the
license problems on your side (which should have gone to lenya-dev, I
realize that now). We contacted you 2 weeks later again. But you never
answered. Why o why?
If you had a problem with our license (or better said the attribution
note), why just didn't you say so? We maybe could have solved this issue
and as I said repeatingly on this thread, we are open to discuss it.
If you want to remove Bitflux Editor from Lenya. Fine, go ahead, I can't
do anything to stop you. I just think, it would be a big loss for the
project. And yes, if you're talking about the "old" Editor, once the new
Bitflux Editor is ready to deploy with lenya, I'm more than happy to
support your proposal to remove the _old_ code.
But this whole discussion was just one of those days, when I
sometimes think, it's not worth anymore to do Open Source projects. And
that is what me really makes sad (But I got much worse mails. See
http://trash.chregu.tv/instructions.txt if you're fed up with this
thread and want to have a good laugh ;) )
Of course, I will not stop doing open source projects, 'cause there were
other, very refreshing "events" about this in the recent days ;)
We invested and still are inversing a lot of time and energy in
developing Bitflux Editor and all we asked for was a bit of attribution
to our side. I would have liked to discuss that with you (and of course
lenya-dev), how exactly this attribution should look like. But somehow,
it's too exhausting to go through all this with the current state of
affairs.
Having said that, if lenya-dev nevertheless decides to include Bitflux
Editor, then I'd be very glad and open to help out wherever problems
arise with BXE and Lenya.
chregu
PS: I don't think, downloading BXE during the build process does solve
your licensing issues. It's IMHO still part of the software then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org