xml-commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: some issues with docs: license review
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2003 01:29:18 GMT
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Norm, i have applied the suggested changes to the
> > resolver side of things. Waiting on the PMC for the other
> > issues (4.5 down, 13.5 to go).
> 
> Whoops.  I've missed something here - many apologies!
> 
> Could you re-post the issues in question?

Sure, see below. As per yesterday's message, the "resolver"
issues are fixed. I am not sure whether to keep copying
the PMC or just deal with it on commons-dev (because all
XML project folks should be there anyway).

--David

-----Original Message-----
Sender: David Crossley
To: commons-dev<AT>xml.apache.org, pmc<AT>xml.apache.org
Subject: some issues with docs: license review
Date: 07 Jul 2003 17:39:52 +1000

While trying to build the XML Commons website, i am running
into quite a lot of issues.

Licenses is one issue. I was first attracted by some tricky
copyright bits in the Resolver documentation, but ended up finding
some discrepancies elsewhere too.

I Cc the PMC so that they can help to ensure that all is ship-shape.

Here is a summary of the state of the CVS. I have listed everything
that i could find. Some are okay, some need attention.

-------------------------------------------------------
1) xml-commons/LICENSE.txt
----------
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2001-2002 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
 * reserved.
...
----------

I just updated that to say 2001-2003

-------------------------------------------------------
2) xml-commons/README.txt
----------

This notes that there are a number of different licenses for the
files under xml-commons/java/external (except for a couple of specific
files) and goes on to say that the catchall licence is that from 1).
Sounds okay to me, but IANAL.

-------------------------------------------------------
3) xml-commons/src/documentation/content/xdocs/licenses.xml
----------

This is a combination of 1) and 2) and will get rendered as the
webpage commons/licenses.html

-------------------------------------------------------
4) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/LICENSE
----------
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2001 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
 * reserved.
...
----------

This has different text to 1) and a different way to define "year"
(which is still 2001). It refers to "Xalan" rather than "Apache"
and additionally refers to IBM. I wonder if that is a relic from
copying another license.

This license also conflicts with a statement from 2). I suggest
that this gets replaced by 1) unless there is a reason for the
differences. 

-------------------------------------------------------
5) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/env/Which*.java
----------

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

-------------------------------------------------------
6) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/*.java

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

A couple of files say "Lotus" instead of IBM.

If 4) is replaced by 1) then these headers would change too.

-------------------------------------------------------
7) xml-commons/java/tests/resolver/src/*.java
----------

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

-------------------------------------------------------
8) xml-commons/java/docs/resolver.xml
----------

The entity resolver article has had many lives.
Now there is this version at xml-commons.

The document has the following explicit copyright statements, which
will get rendered when Forrest generates the HTML documentation.
----------
Copyright © 2001, 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Copyright © 2000 Arbortext, Inc.
----------
Do we just add "2003 ASF" as an additional holder?

Forrest will also automatically add this to the bottom
of the page footer ...
----------
Copyright © 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------
I presume that that sits okay with the abovementioned explicit
statements for past years

Also this Resolver article links to a copyright.html which
does not exist. Should this link to the licence at 5) ?

-------------------------------------------------------
9) xml-commons/java/docs/release-notes.xml
----------

The resolver release notes have the copyright holder as Sun.
Perhaps this should be only ASF because the notes cover the
xml-commons release of Resolver.

-------------------------------------------------------
10) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/transform/*
----------

These have embedded license as per 1)

They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001,
some have been.

A couple of files an additional bit tacked on the end which
refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001.

-------------------------------------------------------
11) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/*
----------

These have embedded license as per 1)

All files have an additional bit tacked on the end which
refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001.

They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001,
some have been.

-------------------------------------------------------
12) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/apache/*
----------

The only stuff in here is xmlcommons/Version.*
These have the "Lotus" variation of 4)

They have not been edited since 2001.

-------------------------------------------------------
13) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.dom-*.txt
----------

Very liberal licence by W3C. I cannot see any conflicts.

-------------------------------------------------------
14) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/w3c/dom/*
----------

These all have a short W3C license header. Seems okay.

Still says "2000". Some files have been edited in 2002.

-------------------------------------------------------
15) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/dom/*
----------

There are various "copyright" documents here which i have not
yet explored.

-------------------------------------------------------
16) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.sax.txt
----------

This makes very explicit statements that everything is released
into the Public Domain.

However, there is a bit of confusing additional comments here
about the document being out-of-date.

-------------------------------------------------------
17) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/xml/sax/*
----------

Most files simply say ...
// No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.

Some simply say ...
// NO WARRANTY!  This class is in the Public Domain.

-------------------------------------------------------
18) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/sax/*
----------

Each document has a simple statement ...
"This document is in the Public Domain."

-------------------------------------------------------
19) xml-commons/java/src/manifest.which and
xml-commons/java/external/src/manifest.commons
----------

Both say that they are created by Sun Microsystems,
- seems a little strange. Or does it mean that the manifest
file format is created by them.

-------------------------------------------------------
20) All java code has got a licence header.
----------

Yes, all java files are complete.

-------------------------------------------------------
21) Up-to-date "year" on copyright statements
----------

Does each file's copyright statement need to be updated
if that file has been modified?

------------------------------------------------------------Forwarded Message-----


From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: commons-dev@xml.apache.org, pmc@xml.apache.org
Subject: some issues with docs: license review
Date: 07 Jul 2003 17:39:52 +1000

While trying to build the XML Commons website, i am running
into quite a lot of issues.

Licenses is one issue. I was first attracted by some tricky
copyright bits in the Resolver documentation, but ended up finding
some discrepancies elsewhere too.

I Cc the PMC so that they can help to ensure that all is ship-shape.

Here is a summary of the state of the CVS. I have listed everything
that i could find. Some are okay, some need attention.

-------------------------------------------------------
1) xml-commons/LICENSE.txt
----------
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2001-2002 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
 * reserved.
...
----------

I just updated that to say 2001-2003

-------------------------------------------------------
2) xml-commons/README.txt
----------

This notes that there are a number of different licenses for the
files under xml-commons/java/external (except for a couple of specific
files) and goes on to say that the catchall licence is that from 1).
Sounds okay to me, but IANAL.

-------------------------------------------------------
3) xml-commons/src/documentation/content/xdocs/licenses.xml
----------

This is a combination of 1) and 2) and will get rendered as the
webpage commons/licenses.html

-------------------------------------------------------
4) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/LICENSE
----------
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2001 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
 * reserved.
...
----------

This has different text to 1) and a different way to define "year"
(which is still 2001). It refers to "Xalan" rather than "Apache"
and additionally refers to IBM. I wonder if that is a relic from
copying another license.

This license also conflicts with a statement from 2). I suggest
that this gets replaced by 1) unless there is a reason for the
differences. 

-------------------------------------------------------
5) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/env/Which*.java
----------

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

-------------------------------------------------------
6) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/*.java

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

A couple of files say "Lotus" instead of IBM.

If 4) is replaced by 1) then these headers would change too.

-------------------------------------------------------
7) xml-commons/java/tests/resolver/src/*.java
----------

These have embedded license as per 4)
i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

-------------------------------------------------------
8) xml-commons/java/docs/resolver.xml
----------

The entity resolver article has had many lives.
Now there is this version at xml-commons.

The document has the following explicit copyright statements, which
will get rendered when Forrest generates the HTML documentation.
----------
Copyright © 2001, 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Copyright © 2000 Arbortext, Inc.
----------
Do we just add "2003 ASF" as an additional holder?

Forrest will also automatically add this to the bottom
of the page footer ...
----------
Copyright © 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------
I presume that that sits okay with the abovementioned explicit
statements for past years

Also this Resolver article links to a copyright.html which
does not exist. Should this link to the licence at 5) ?

-------------------------------------------------------
9) xml-commons/java/docs/release-notes.xml
----------

The resolver release notes have the copyright holder as Sun.
Perhaps this should be only ASF because the notes cover the
xml-commons release of Resolver.

-------------------------------------------------------
10) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/transform/*
----------

These have embedded license as per 1)

They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001,
some have been.

A couple of files an additional bit tacked on the end which
refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001.

-------------------------------------------------------
11) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/*
----------

These have embedded license as per 1)

All files have an additional bit tacked on the end which
refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001.

They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001,
some have been.

-------------------------------------------------------
12) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/apache/*
----------

The only stuff in here is xmlcommons/Version.*
These have the "Lotus" variation of 4)

They have not been edited since 2001.

-------------------------------------------------------
13) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.dom-*.txt
----------

Very liberal licence by W3C. I cannot see any conflicts.

-------------------------------------------------------
14) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/w3c/dom/*
----------

These all have a short W3C license header. Seems okay.

Still says "2000". Some files have been edited in 2002.

-------------------------------------------------------
15) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/dom/*
----------

There are various "copyright" documents here which i have not
yet explored.

-------------------------------------------------------
16) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.sax.txt
----------

This makes very explicit statements that everything is released
into the Public Domain.

However, there is a bit of confusing additional comments here
about the document being out-of-date.

-------------------------------------------------------
17) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/xml/sax/*
----------

Most files simply say ...
// No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.

Some simply say ...
// NO WARRANTY!  This class is in the Public Domain.

-------------------------------------------------------
18) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/sax/*
----------

Each document has a simple statement ...
"This document is in the Public Domain."

-------------------------------------------------------
19) xml-commons/java/src/manifest.which and
xml-commons/java/external/src/manifest.commons
----------

Both say that they are created by Sun Microsystems,
- seems a little strange. Or does it mean that the manifest
file format is created by them.

-------------------------------------------------------
20) All java code has got a licence header.
----------

Yes, all java files are complete.

-------------------------------------------------------
21) Up-to-date "year" on copyright statements
----------

Does each file's copyright statement need to be updated
if that file has been modified?

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



Mime
View raw message