www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: site -= apply-license.html
Date Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:55:25 GMT

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 18:20 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 03/04/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html is dated and contains
> >  information that has been replaced by content on legal. i think most of
> >  the content is either out-of-date or replaced. i think that it's best
> >  removed and a redirect added to the newer legal documentation.
> >
> 
> >  any objections?
> >
> 
> I think the only part of the document that is out of date are parts of
> the #new section:
> - the para about the NOTICE file is incomplete, because the ASF
> Copyright line now goes in the file.
> - the para about the source file header is incorrect, because the
> header text has changed.

i'll go through each section:

the new section concerns the AL1.1->AL2.0 license update and is so
completedly outdated

"Understanding the 2.0 license" is good prose but covered better
elsewhere

"Applying the license to existing software" conerns the AL1.1->AL2.0
license update and is therefore competely outdated

"Do I have to convert Apache 1.1 licenses to 2.0 licenses in source
code?" is no longer relevant

"Where do I find a copy of the new license?" is trivial

"When do I have to convert ASF code to the new license?" is no longer
relevant

"Do I have to convert old versions and branches of code to the new
license?" is no longer relevant

"Does that mean live branches of code all have to be updated by 1 March
2004?" is no longer relevant

"Do I have to have a copy of the license in each source file?" is
correct but covered in more detail elsewhere

"In my current source files I have attribution notices for other works.
Do I put this in each source file now?" is incomplete and possibly
misleading

"Can/Should individual committers claim any copyright in the NOTICE or
source code files?" is not correct

"Can the LICENSE and NOTICE files be called LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt?"
is accurate but normative

"Should the license be included in source files for documentation (e.g.
XML that is transformed to HTML)?" accurate but not normative

> >  anything i've missed?
> >
> >  unless anyone shouts, i'll delete it tomorrow (friday) sometime after
> >  1200 hours GMT.
> >
> 
> Rather than deleting it entirely, I think the incorrect parts should be updated.

the reason why it's outdated is that it's in the wrong place :-)

> But I do agree that this whole area needs re-organising to make it
> absolutely clear what the requirements are, i.e. the legal
> requirements and the ASF policy, which AFAIK goes beyond the strict
> legal requirements.
>
> It may be that the document is eventually deleted as part of the
> re-organisation, but I think it's too early to do that yet.

the re-organisation has already happened: the legal stuff has been moved
into http://www.apache.org/legal and used by reference. the current
focus is third party software rules and in particular LGPL issues but
please feel free to kick off new discussions on the parts of that
document that you feel strongly about. creating a initial draft on the
legal wiki is the best way to start.

- robert

Mime
View raw message