Could we just strip the license as a part of the create script? On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> 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. > > >> > > > > >
