commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [compress] Including AL Code from other projects
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:13:01 GMT
This is a dead end - we don't ask JUnit to sign anything, we don't ask
Linux kernel hackers just to be users. Using under license and
redistributing is something we do all over the place and just because
this is our license (but not our code) doesn't change anything.

Hen

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:58 AM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> No, not everyone has the right to license their code with the Apache
> License.  If they work for a company and their contract states that
> the company owns anything they create under their employ, then they do
> not own it.  Also, who is to say that they didn't steal the code from
> some codebase (perhaps from their employer; think SCO) that isn't
> Apache-Licensed?
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Antonio <antonio.petrelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/1/8 Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: James Carman [mailto:james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>> Sent: 08 January 2009 15:16
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Re: [compress] Including ASL Code from other projects
>>>>
>>>> My only point is that we don't know for sure that these folks are
>>>> *allowed* to license their code under the ASL.  All we have is a
>>>> Javadoc header and an ASL license declaration in their pom file.
>>>
>>> It simply isn't practical to find out "for sure" that they have these
>>> rights.
>>
>> Everyone has the right to license their code in the preferred way. In
>> this case , they put the LICENSE file directly in the root of their
>> project:
>> http://jrpm.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jrpm/trunk/LICENSE.txt?revision=2&view=markup
>> I did not check it, but probably they put it in every package they release.
>>
>>
>>> All we need is the code an a statement, in any form, that says the code is
>>> licensed under the Apache License.
>>
>> The presence of the LICENSE file is already a statement.
>>
>>> Whilst I am in a pedantic mood, it is the "Apache License" not the "Apache
>>> Software License".
>>
>> Since I'm a bit more pedantic, the v1.1 of the license is Apache
>> Software License :-D
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message