www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: short file short notices
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:59:12 GMT
Dear Larry,

Please.

Please.

Please.

Read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

For many years, Apache have not put copyright notices into each file.

Later,

Craig

On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Someone quoted:
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
>
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with  
> copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying  
> recipients of the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the  
> following two-line minimum notice:
>
>     Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>     Licensed under the terms of the http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 
> .
>
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't  
> care that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the  
> top of a file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2  
> lines. :-)
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com 
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell
>> <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to  
>>> change,
>>> and I think it would be good if there were a policy that justifies  
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 to make the change.
>>
>> If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this
>> "license footer" proposal obsolete?  It seems sub-optimal to update
>> those how-to files once, then update them again.
>>
>> (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply
>> "Licensed under the terms of
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for
>> everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
>
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
>
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is  
> my practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers  
> (and is not solved by the rules that exclude some things from  
> copyright altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a  
> good thing in theory, but who don't represent an actual practical  
> problem, won't cut it.
>
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the  
> bill?
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


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


Mime
View raw message