www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Test files with no license information
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:19:05 GMT
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Garrett Rooney
<rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>  > I notice that the thread in the incubator relating to the proposed release
>  > of Abdera has run into some difficulties with the following text from [1]:
>  >
>  >  <policy>
>  >  What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?
>  >  A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
>  > its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does
>  > not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the file's
>  > creativity, add the license header to the file.
>  >
>  >  </policy>
>  >
>  >  In my opinion, this may be too restrictive. In the case of test case files,
>  > the test might specifically address a case where adding the Apache license
>  > header changes the test or makes the test invalid. For example, an .xml file
>  > that is testing the behavior of a parser on a file without any comments.
>  >
>  >  Seems to me we need an exception in these cases. If only to avoid having
>  > the same discussion every few months in the incubator.

In general, I am not in favor of abstract and often overreaching
<policy/> statements like the one stated at the top of this email, and
am much more favorably inclined towards statements like the one that
appears directly after the <policy/> that solve real problems.  My
only request is that such be scoped as narrowly as possible: i.e.,
something along the lines of the Apache license header is required
except in those specific cases where it would make a test invalid, and
only the specific test case is included in a suite where the
overwhelming majority of test cases have such a header.

- Sam Ruby

>  It should go without saying that I'm in favor of an explicit exception
>  for this kind of case.  I'm getting extremely tired of having the
>  argument on general@incubator, and the fact that it keeps coming
>  apparently means we can't trust people to just exercise common sense
>  on this sort of case...
>
>  -garrett
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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