recent discussions elsewhere indicate (to me) that while the ASL (apache software license) is compatible with other licenses but the ASF (apache software foundation) doesn't want to conflate our source with other ones (reasonable imo)
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Josh Soref <jso...@blackberry.com> wrote: > In theory, shouldn't we be able to put that file under an MIT/BSD license > to make people happier? > > Getting sample content to be usable by others is a pain, and something > that is one of the last steps people work on. > > I think Mozilla moved its tests to MIT to address this. > > I have no idea what Apache's policy is. > > Unfortunately, I can't find any good examples of this… > > https://github.com/eclipsesource/raspberry-pi-examples/blob/master/com.ecli > psesource.iot.photosensor-example/src/com/eclipsesource/iot/photosensor/exa > mple/Main.java > > Has an Eclipse license on a sample, which is probably just as bad. > > http://hg.netbeans.org/main/file/23e994b27837/apisupport.crudsample/crud-sa > mple-application/CustomerDBAccess/src/demo/Customer.java > > Has GPL/CDDL. GPL is clearly useless. I'm not sure CDDL is more helpful > than Apache. > > > http://www.contactandcoil.com/software/a-very-fast-tutorial-on-open-source- > licenses/ > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/200710.mbox/%3C62FEC22 > 5-fe92-476b-84c1-69869b179...@objectstyle.org%3E > > http://apache.org/legal/3party.html#category-a > > http://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/245/cc-by-vs-mit-or-bsd-license > s-regarding-re-use > > > https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ > > > I think we should probably get permission and relicense those files as > CC-0. > > CC-0 isn't in the list that Apache has whitelisted, but I think we should > be able to convince apache that this is the right license for these files > (and similar template files to be used to generate content that a consumer > is supposed to be able to do w/ however they please). > > On 12/10/14, 2:02 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >no mistake, but it is a requirement for us to distribute code at apache. > >you are free to remove and relicense as you wish. > > > >On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Martin Sidaway <msida...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> I'm a bit puzzled by the Apache license notice present in the following > >> files after doing "cordova create": > >> > >> www/index.html > >> www/js/index.js > >> www/css/index.css > >> > >> The trouble is that if I begin my project by extending those files, it > >> seems like the Apache license covers my changes as well as the original > >> template. It also seems like I am saying that my changes are "licensed > >>to > >> the Apache Software Foundation under one or more contributor license > >> agreements". And it doesn't seem like the Apache license would allow me > >>to > >> remove those notices. > >> > >> So am I right in thinking that if I want to develop software that I > >>might > >> not intend to be Apache-licensed and/or licensed to ASF, I have to > >>delete > >> these 3 files and start from scratch? > >> > >> This sort of thing seems a little inappropriate in a template. Basically > >> what it means is that I have to (1) work out what the template does and > >> which parts I actually need to begin a project, (2) rewrite those parts > >>by > >> hand (basic html document structure, meta/viewport tag, etc.) taking > >>care > >> not to resort to copy/paste, (3) gradually realise that the aspects of > >>my > >> app that behave inconveniently on certain platforms correspond to > >>things I > >> chose not to copy over from the template. > >> > >> Is there any other way to approach this? Is it a mistake? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >
