www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ASF Source Header documentation pages disagree
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:16:33 GMT
On 20/12/06, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> This is my fault.  I've left things in this confused state for too
> long.  I'll fix this up next week -- really!  Everyone gets to
> spam/harass me if I don't have it mostly done by the new year.

PING?

> More specific answers below.  Thanks for taking the time to point out
> these inconsistencies.
>
> Cliff
>
> On 12/20/06, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just noticed some inconsistencies in the license documentation on the
> > web-site...
> >
> > The new rules for applying licences to source files are at:
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> This doc is the normative one right now, although I need to move the
> doc to /dev and put in a redirect .
>
> > However, there are still some rules at:
> >
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> Much of this is redundant or conflicting with [1], but there is still
> some good stuff here that needs to not get lost (e.g. copying or
> referencing third-party licenses in the LICENSE file).
>
> >
> > and
> >
> > [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply
>
> This is still good advice to any non-ASF projects that want to use the
> Apache License.  It might be confusing that ASF projects do something
> a little different (due to the collective nature of our works), but it
> would be a bit of a pain to change the language at all -- as an
> appendix to the license, it's become considered part of what v2.0 is.
> See http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php.
>
> > which disagree with [1] - in particular with regard to the Copyright
> > sentence in the boilerplate for source files.
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/ refers to [2] - it should
> > presumably refer to [1]
> >
> > [2] could probably be deleted ?
>
> [4] definitely needs at least a minor update.  See my note about [2] above.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message