Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28323 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2004 19:42:58 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2004 19:42:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 73963 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2004 19:42:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 73870 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2004 19:42:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 73856 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2004 19:42:47 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:42:53 -0800 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Licensing of find_apr.m4 and find_apu.m4? Message-ID: <2147483647.1078573373@[10.0.1.105]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.2 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable version=2.70-r6256 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.70-r6256 (2004-01-23) on scotch.ics.uci.edu X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 (. I'm not sure if that goes too far, but perhaps not. Thoughts? -- justin