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 2003/02/01 22:17:15 UTC
Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
...
>> Also - what/where are the license details related to the Concurrency
>> package?
>
> Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
Hmmm...
I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author doesn't
it want to be used.
Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>> Also - what/where are the license details related to the
Concurrency package?
>>
>>
>>
>> Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
>
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author doesn't
it want to be used.
>
> Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
>
Ok. Maybe you are missunderstanding. On the site, they are explicitly
public domain. In the copyright law classes that I took in college it
basically means that the author retains no rights on the code, which
also means we can change it, distribute it, or even repackage it with
our own name--even though the last one is unethical. There is
absolutely no legal recourse the original author has because he is not
retaining that right.
To be honest, this is one of the best packages for thread control. All
of this work will be incorporated into JDK 1.5.
Each public domain package has to be evaluated on its own merit. We
have full rights to be able to put public domain packages in CVS, on
a high volume distribution server, or to hand out on CDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:17:15PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>...
> I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
> wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
> in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author doesn't
> it want to be used.
Correct: the package must have a license, or we have no grant.
If we have an email from the author stating it is in the public domain, then
we can keep that on file and insert a license into the code stating it is in
the public domain.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
...
> I would like to get a higher opinion on this - Sam?, Greg?
I've also CCed licensing@apache.org BTW.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> In the two cases that I know of it's perfectly fine. The Concurrent code
> is Doug Lea's so it's pretty safe to say it's just fine.
It is easy enough to ask Doug. He's a very nice guy, and responds to his
e-mail. :-)
Not that it is necessary to ask him, but if it makes someone feel better,
fine.
>From the code: "Originally written by Doug Lea and released into the public
domain. This may be used for any purposes whatsoever without
acknowledgment."
see also:
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/public_domain_
work.htm
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>>>Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
>>>
>>>I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
>>>wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
>>>in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author
>>>doesn't it want to be used.
>>
>>I had the same thoughts. I'm not happy with depedencies on something
>>that does not have a license. I would prefer that we took the content,
>>repackaged it under the org.apache.avalon.something namespace and issued
>>a release under the Apache license.
>>
>>>Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
>>
>>I would like to get a higher opinion on this - Sam?, Greg?
>
> In the two cases that I know of it's perfectly fine. The Concurrent code
> is Doug Lea's so it's pretty safe to say it's just fine. It's going into
> Tiger with small changes from it's present state. The other package is
> Antlr which is also just fine. Terence Parr, the main Antlr fellow,
> refuses to take part in any licensing issues whatsoever so puts
> everything in the public domain. It means you can do whatever you want
> with it. It also means the author has no legal recourse in the event of
> a lawsuit as there is no disclaimer as such that is present in the
> Apache license. As a user of the code you're perfectly safe.
I am quite comfortable with dependencies on both of those packages. So,
I concur with Jason's sentiment that in these two cases it's perfectly fine.
In a perfect world, there would be a clearcut license which would
resolve all of this. In this case we have to rely on the stated intent
of the developers. Had one or both of these been new pieces of software
developed by individuals without an established reputation, I would be
hesitant.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:24, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> Also - what/where are the license details related to the Concurrency
> >>> package?
> >>
> >>
> >> Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
> > wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
> > in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author
> > doesn't it want to be used.
>
>
> I had the same thoughts. I'm not happy with depedencies on something
> that does not have a license. I would prefer that we took the content,
> repackaged it under the org.apache.avalon.something namespace and issued
> a release under the Apache license.
>
> >
> > Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
> >
>
> I would like to get a higher opinion on this - Sam?, Greg?
In the two cases that I know of it's perfectly fine. The Concurrent code
is Doug Lea's so it's pretty safe to say it's just fine. It's going into
Tiger with small changes from it's present state. The other package is
Antlr which is also just fine. Terence Parr, the main Antlr fellow,
refuses to take part in any licensing issues whatsoever so puts
everything in the public domain. It means you can do whatever you want
with it. It also means the author has no legal recourse in the event of
a lawsuit as there is no disclaimer as such that is present in the
Apache license. As a user of the code you're perfectly safe.
> Cheers, Steve.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Also - what/where are the license details related to the Concurrency
>>> package?
>>
>>
>> Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
> wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
> in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author
> doesn't it want to be used.
I had the same thoughts. I'm not happy with depedencies on something
that does not have a license. I would prefer that we took the content,
repackaged it under the org.apache.avalon.something namespace and issued
a release under the Apache license.
>
> Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
>
I would like to get a higher opinion on this - Sam?, Greg?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Public domain packages ( was Re: [A4] release plan thoughts )
Posted by J Aaron Farr <ja...@yahoo.com>.
--- Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > Stephen McConnell wrote:
> ...
> >> Also - what/where are the license details related to the Concurrency
> >> package?
> >
> > Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control).
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but
> wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's
> in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author doesn't
> it want to be used.
>
> Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS?
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
Perhaps it's not my place to chime in on this one and IANAL as well, but I
wanted to add some clarifications:
"public domain" is a legal term meaning "not copyrighted." This means it is
free in every sense of the word -- there are no restrictions placed on it
whatsoever. However, the catch to public domain is in the warranty clause.
All open source/free software licenses have a NO WARRANTY clause which public
domain does not carry due to it's lack of a license. From what I understand
this leaves public domain open to lawsuits due to bugs. You might want to
check the FSF site for some of their take on public domain.
However, someone mentioned refactoring EDU.util.concurrent to a different
package structure, such as org.apache.... As a user my only concern with that
is does it mean Avalon will now support the package? Essentially this would
fork the code and util.concurrent is used by many applications in and out of
Apache. It'd be nice if I didn't have to have one copy for avalon apps and one
copy for other apps.
Anyway, just some thoughts,
jaaron
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org