Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C76B0D4A7 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 19358 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2012 10:15:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 18883 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2012 10:15:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 18623 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:15:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nslater@tumbolia.org designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.178] (HELO mail-ie0-f178.google.com) (209.85.223.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:15:03 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id e11so725794iej.23 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:14:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tumbolia.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CKKyo30sg93AyZ6Y5gKvtSKinyJMrKc8ZD32WHJq7oA=; b=omaPIUiDW6N7K14J6+WffVMJXNcUW62vm19VdpvevpaSIkZrg8Ov6+0hQTpYQ2KtiP AR/9ngUWcOizzKdhK0dm9dfG84KOWhUWp5RQmioPkRVvbY1cJfXPGt3jjAMdvQmfm8Mz 7gptGYO1wlWNUgvNwjbPcVrkWuDy0ZhlvkRqI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=CKKyo30sg93AyZ6Y5gKvtSKinyJMrKc8ZD32WHJq7oA=; b=BgdpaEX67mDSIayW/eqj6GdH9qr8v9OkIHhJBGd7DsBu1mLLvNtR7I58UGEF9roHtF lO5QtLlv8VqfxKFaZ60HmA9Aylmrcz1UlRlApxIld2G0O6SxeU4FUUkgly/5ifnQPp35 iouKgi1mF5fvpikLBTZhHX6Sz13LfdcS6uJsh60gu7HhdBUIDJmm771hYPGompGF1vV2 uDShFA7j6oUjAeh/v0L+Ejkib/yjVifx7LTc3/QRyh2IwC8n3Wm5HO5vLwcmldAepe+l I48PY5LC+/zQLvaAjzwLKoyT6I0GOx0R50S/BaeJizpyn6W62E02dEUU/W9fmxwLoY9v Hp2g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.197.170 with SMTP id iv10mr4679986igc.24.1349345253069; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.63.19 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 03:07:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [79.97.124.139] In-Reply-To: References: <652D12A8-696F-4D44-B058-DC8ECD93907D@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:07:33 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Permissive license for supporting files From: Noah Slater To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5396b507d121804cb38ec6f X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvjFDBunrpY1vXBRd48bn/Lon4VA7zEEUjQkmJ6KNGm7QRNbCdccTg6Fus17f7rkXay7fl X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec5396b507d121804cb38ec6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's the thread that started this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201209.mb= ox/%3CCC8205AC.2F696%25chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com%3E The summary is: Do we really need to add an Apache license header to all of our config files? Are there times we can omit it, or can we add a note to LICENSE saying that all config files are licensed under the Apache license. I think this question largely goes away if the ASF approved a short, all permissive, licenses for supporting files. (And the GNU All Permissive, as we call it in Debian, seems like as good a place to start as any.) On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the > file. A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit more. > It would be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such > supporting files. > > (Not talking about small files that form the core of the product. I'm > talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifically in the > case of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configuration files for > various systems.) > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller wrot= e: > >> >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >> > Hey, >> > >> > We're just going through the configuration files we ship with >> CloudStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of >> these files, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more >> permissive license. >> > >> > To quote the GNU maintainer manual: >> > >> > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough >> documentation (=91README=92 files, =91INSTALL=92 files, etc.) can use a = simple >> all-permissive license like this one: >> > >> > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, >> > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright >> > notice and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, >> > without any warranty. >> > >> > Can we use this license in the same way? >> >> Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? What problems >> does AL v2 present for these files? >> >> --kevan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org >> >> > > > -- > NS > --=20 NS --bcaec5396b507d121804cb38ec6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's the thread that started this:


The summary is: Do we really need to add an Apache lice= nse header to all of our config files? Are there times we can omit it, or c= an we add a note to LICENSE saying that all config files are licensed under= the Apache license.

I think this question largely goes away if the ASF=A0ap= proved=A0a short, all permissive, licenses for supporting files. (And the G= NU All Permissive, as we call it in Debian, seems like as good a place to s= tart as any.)

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater = <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
The boilerplate is large, and can often be larger than the rest of the file= . A config file might have three or four lines, sometimes a bit more. It wo= uld be nice to have a three line license header we can use for such support= ing files.

(Not talking about small files that form the core of the pro= duct. I'm talking about supporting files. Configuration, etc. Specifica= lly in the case of CloudStack where we're shipping a lot of configurati= on files for various systems.)


On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kevan Miller= <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote:

> Hey,
>
> We're just going through the configuration files we ship with Clou= dStack, and it occurred to me that given the simplicity of most of these fi= les, we might want to distribute them with a more simple, more permissive l= icense.
>
> To quote the GNU maintainer manual:
>
> Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough= documentation (=91README=92 files, =91INSTALL=92 files, etc.) can use a si= mple all-permissive license like this one:
>
> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> notice and this notice are preserved. =A0This file is offered as-is, > without any warranty.
>
> Can we use this license in the same way?

Is there an actual problem that you're trying to address? W= hat problems does AL v2 present for these files?

--kevan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org




--
NS



--
NS
--bcaec5396b507d121804cb38ec6f--