incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Licence headers in template files
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:41:13 GMT
On 6 February 2012 16:30, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma<ate@douma.nu>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>>>>> <mfranklin@mitre.org>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at
this
>>>>>> page), but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like you need the header,
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> you assume your templates are source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
>>>>>>       Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License
text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am no lawyer, so I will defer to someone who has more experience
than
>>>>>> me to help you determine whether your snippets count as source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that is a bug in the Release FAQ. What i've been told in the
>>>>> past but which i can't find links to right now, is that the top level
>>>>> LICENSE file covers everything anyway and the individual license
>>>>> headers aren't strictly necessary especially for source files without
>>>>> significant IP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? That then would be quite some 'bug' IMO.
>>>> I can't recall have heard it said like this before, instead confirmation
>>>> of
>>>> the above rule quite often. Exceptions (no headers) only being allowed
>>>> for
>>>> sources without real IP value.
>>>>
>>>> Ate
>>>>
>>>>> IMHO if the headers are problematic for Wookie in
>>>>> those files then it would be ok to just not include the header.
>>>>>
>>>>>    ...ant
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I've just asked for clarification about this over at legal -
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124
>>>
>> Seems to me this has been asked and answered before:
>>
>>  http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>
>>
>
> One of the things I've seen come up repeatedly for poddlings is that
> they should have license headers in doc files like READMEs. It could
> be argued they have creative content but as one example, the HTTPD doc
> type files don't have license headers.

Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader
is relevant here.

The README file is generally not going to be modified - or seen in
isolation - so it's not so necessary for the end user to know its
license from the file itself.

However, the template files are specifically designed for
modification, and are likely to be seen without the LICENSE file, so
IMO the enduser should see the AL header as part of the file.

> Searching in the archives it looks like this type of question comes up
> quite a lot. One longer thread is this one
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/5hk2t2vl6jjtsloy which ends with:
>
> "For now, I'll be happy with some wording in our License Policy
> document that explicitly permits the PMC to use its judgement as to
> whether a license header is required in a source artifact. We've seen
> evidence that the current policy doesn't leave room for such things as
> test cases that should not have license headers."
>
>   ...ant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message