avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject Re: licensing issues revisited
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:38:51 GMT
Hi Paul,

please recap if you haven't already:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102509747200005&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102501253800001&r=1&w=2

and other messages around those dates.

You may recall that there was a single -1 on the long license header,
from Pete, then a discussion about what was official policy, followed by
some comments from Stefano, then another vote, then no more -1.

Pete has explained to me recently one of the reasons behind not wanting
the change originally that he feels it was a lot of unneccessary work
for us. Conversation basically ended in me saying I'd raise the issue
again (I didn't get the feeling at all he in any way objected, but that
is a bit of an assumption on my part :), and have now done so.

It probably seemed to Stephen like when you would've read the other
threads again that took place in august you'd naturally agree about the
right course of action. This is a big assumption on my part:)

Regardless of all this, I will state my reasoning once more:

1 - IANAL (and none of us is)
2 - we should be on the safest possible side of any license issue
3 - Stefano (someone I trust) has stated we need the long license
4 - Pete (whom I also trust) has stated either short or long is fine
5 - I considered Stefano's message to be more strongly worded
(specifically, there was no smiley and a mention of "you have no right
to") and hence give it a greater weight
6 - the non-activity of the PMC (where Pete has been in contact with
them about this as evident from recent discussion on reorg@) implies
consent by them for <dunno what exactly/>
7 - recent discussion on reorg@ stated there were problems with the way
licensing is handled in avalon cvs
8 - Pete recently stated in private conversation with me and in public
conversation on reorg@ we have license problems in avalon cvs that
really need fixing

based on 1,2,3,4,5 I believe we should change to the long license header
as there clearly is ambiguity wrt to the short license header and not
wrt to the long license header. I also believe that based on 6,7,8 it
was a good idea to write the original e-mail in this thread the way that
I did.

Now based on all the above and the messages posted on this list around
2002-06-26, do you agree the changes Stephen made were in order? I
really want everyone to see things the same way on this....legal stuff
matters :)

best regards,

Leo Simons

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 19:12, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > In the meantime, here is a list of the license updates I've just committed:
> > 
> >    avalon-framework
> 
> I think that was a bit unilateral.  To have it discussed to completion would have been
far more
> prudent Stephen.  You know what happened last time this happended.
> 
> - Paul



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message