camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetypes - Generating files with ASF license headers
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:07:07 GMT
Am 04.07.2012 09:45, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Christian Schneider
> <> wrote:
>> Basically I agree that we should not have Apache License headers as people
>> will have to manually remove them.
>> On the other hand it is important that we have a license for the code the
>> archetype generates. Without
>> a license people might be insecure what they may do with the code.
> Frankly I that the current situation is worse, as the generated code
> is licensed to ASF by one of the contributor agreements.
> And the person generated that code is very very likely not already an
> ASF contributor. And the source code is not intended to
> be contributed to ASF and included in the ASF organization, eg in any
> of the ASF projects.
I agree .. ideally I also would like the generated code to be as freely 
usable as possible.
> Instead the person want to use the generated code as a base for a new project.
> And therefore he/she would in a better position if there was NO
> licenses generated at all. Then its 100% clean.
> Otherwise that person most likely need to remove the licenses to make
> it comply with his organization.

That is absolutely wrong. If there is no license than that means that 
you have no rights at all on the code. Ask your lawyer about this.
So I think we can either use the Apache License which is the easiest way 
for as as we use it all day long or we have to search for a even more 
permissive license.
The problem with using another license is that we need some feddback 
from Apache and perhaps even a lawyer that we use it correctly and may 
use it.
> Any why do you think its important that generated code from a maven
> tooling *must* have licenses.
> The tool is for end users to create new projects, and to make their
> life easier. Not harder / more confusing / annoying.
Well because it is the law? The law is not easy and often annoying but 
ignoring it only gets you into trouble.
> What they do with the code is their business. We should just be happy
> that there is a demand for this tool, and
> we should make the lives of our end users easier.
Yes. But we should provide good legal safety for our users. If we do not 
then our end users may soon face some security staff from their company 
who tells them they may not use our code at all.

>> I think the Apache license might still be ok for the archetypes but we could
>> simply put it in the base dir of the generated code.
> Other ASF projects do *NOT* include license headers.
> For example I tried the Karaf 2.2.8 commands
I also support removing the license headers on the files if we may do it 
from the apache side. Still we need a license or our users may be in 


Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division

View raw message