commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <>
Subject RE: License and copyright issues
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:32:04 GMT
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 10:56 21.10.2002 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >I found a few things not yet mentioned:
> >
> >
> >3) There are many, many cases where an abbreviated form of the Apache
> >license is used. I don't recall whether this is permitted or not, but I know
> >at the very least it's "not recommended".
> Your statement is generally accepted to be correct. However, it will create 
> unnecessary work when the ASF switches to the next version of the license 
> which is significantly longer than the current one. It will be impractical 
> to copy it verbatim in each source file. For this reason, most projects 
> will have to revert to using the short form. As far as I know, the short 
> form is perfectly legal. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This question has been asked and answered numerous times.

The short form is not allowed.  Period.

The 1.1 version of the apache license does not allow for it.  
Supposedly, when the 2.0 version of the apache license is released,
there will be a short form that will accompany it.  But until that time,
there is no such thing as a "short form" of the apache license.  There
is one and only one acceptable license to place at the top of the files
and that is the so-called "long" form, or the "full" license.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message