DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms

[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED



--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-22 18:26 ---
Both CVS HEAD and 2.0 upgraded to ALv2

Oleg

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-09 17:10 ---
Roy Fielding states:

When modifying the copyright notice for Apache software, the name
of the copyright owner must be stated as in the following examples:

   Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
or
   Copyright 2002-2004 The Apache Software Foundation.
or
   Copyright 2002,2004 The Apache Software Foundation.

That is the official name of the corporation as registered in Delaware,
so it is important not to leave out the "The" for the copyright notice
(just about everywhere else it doesn't matter).

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[dion]

Adrian Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/02/2004 03:17:38 PM:

> > Oleg, I agree with your plan.  We should plan to finish the release 
and
> > move to license 2.0 when we need to.
> 
> +1.  By my bugzilla query that's the last issue listed for 2.0.  If I 
recall
> correctly we decided we didn't need to release another RC?  If so, 
should we
> be proposing a vote for the final release or did people want to wait for 
a
> while longer?
> 
> > Mike
> 
> Sorry for being pushy...
And I believe the board has mandated the license be adopted by March.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:  http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[Adrian Sutton]

> Oleg, I agree with your plan.  We should plan to finish the release and
> move to license 2.0 when we need to.

+1.  By my bugzilla query that's the last issue listed for 2.0.  If I recall
correctly we decided we didn't need to release another RC?  If so, should we
be proposing a vote for the final release or did people want to wait for a
while longer?

> Mike

Sorry for being pushy...

Regards,

Adrian Sutton

--
Intencha "tomorrow's technology today"
Ph: 38478913 0422236329
Suite 8/29 Oatland Crescent
Holland Park West 4121
Australia QLD
www.intencha.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[Michael Becke]

Eric brings up the very problem that I was worried about.  I am wary to 
update the license in mid release.

Oleg, I agree with your plan.  We should plan to finish the release and 
move to license 2.0 when we need to.

Mike

On Feb 4, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:

Eric,
I think you've made a very good point. Besides, as far as I understand
we can still stick to the version 1.1 if we manage to put the final
release together before the end of the month:
"...
The Apache License, version 2.0, was approved for use by Apache 
projects
as of January 21, 2004, with all Apache projects required to move to 
the
new license by March 1, 2004
..."

I believe we should cut the final release rather sooner than later, and
then upgrade to the AL v2.0
Oleg

On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 19:14, Eric Johnson wrote:
Knowing the speed with which corporate legal departments can move, I
would hope for keeping the old license for the 2.0 release.
I think it would be unfair/surprising for clients to discover that 
they
would have to do a legal an unexpected legal review just for the sake 
of
eliminating a few bugs.  In the case of my company, that would 
probably
keep us using 2.0rc3 for a few extra releases.

Then again, I'll have to check with legal

On the other hand, given the small bandwidth for developers here,
perhaps it is just better to make the change, rather than messing 
around
with the PMC.

-Eric.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 
03:00 ---
I'm wondering if we should change licenses in mid release.  I do not 
know if 2.0 causes any
problems for users, but it seems like a pretty big change for this 
release.  Perhaps we can wait until
after 2.0 is released.  How does everyone feel about this?

Mike

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[Oleg Kalnichevski]

Eric,
I think you've made a very good point. Besides, as far as I understand
we can still stick to the version 1.1 if we manage to put the final
release together before the end of the month:

"...
The Apache License, version 2.0, was approved for use by Apache projects
as of January 21, 2004, with all Apache projects required to move to the
new license by March 1, 2004
..."

I believe we should cut the final release rather sooner than later, and
then upgrade to the AL v2.0

Oleg

On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 19:14, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Knowing the speed with which corporate legal departments can move, I 
> would hope for keeping the old license for the 2.0 release.
> 
> I think it would be unfair/surprising for clients to discover that they 
> would have to do a legal an unexpected legal review just for the sake of 
> eliminating a few bugs.  In the case of my company, that would probably 
> keep us using 2.0rc3 for a few extra releases.
> 
> Then again, I'll have to check with legal
> 
> On the other hand, given the small bandwidth for developers here, 
> perhaps it is just better to make the change, rather than messing around 
> with the PMC.
> 
> -Eric.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
> >RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> >.
> >ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
> >INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
> >
> >http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382
> >
> >Update license terms
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 03:00 ---
> >I'm wondering if we should change licenses in mid release.  I do not know if 2.0 
> >causes any 
> >problems for users, but it seems like a pretty big change for this release.  
> >Perhaps we can wait until 
> >after 2.0 is released.  How does everyone feel about this?
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[Eric Johnson]

Knowing the speed with which corporate legal departments can move, I 
would hope for keeping the old license for the 2.0 release.

I think it would be unfair/surprising for clients to discover that they 
would have to do a legal an unexpected legal review just for the sake of 
eliminating a few bugs.  In the case of my company, that would probably 
keep us using 2.0rc3 for a few extra releases.

Then again, I'll have to check with legal

On the other hand, given the small bandwidth for developers here, 
perhaps it is just better to make the change, rather than messing around 
with the PMC.

-Eric.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 03:00 ---
I'm wondering if we should change licenses in mid release.  I do not know if 2.0 causes any 
problems for users, but it seems like a pretty big change for this release.  Perhaps we can wait until 
after 2.0 is released.  How does everyone feel about this?

Mike

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 07:12 ---
The license at the top of the file is the explicit statement that paragraph has an 
exception for.  So if we 
were to release 2.0 as is, it would be under the 1.0 license.  I think if we are 
considering putting out a 
release under the 1.0 license we should get approval from the PMC.  Personally, I 
would release under 
the 2.0 license.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 06:56 ---
The problem is, that HttpClient will be *implicitly* licensed under the new
license. So we will cause less confusion if we directly include the new lincense
now. See www.apache.org/licenses :

"All packages produced by the ASF are implicitly licensed under the Apache
License, version 2.0, unless otherwise explicitly stated."

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-02-03 03:00 ---
I'm wondering if we should change licenses in mid release.  I do not know if 2.0 
causes any 
problems for users, but it seems like a pretty big change for this release.  Perhaps 
we can wait until 
after 2.0 is released.  How does everyone feel about this?

Mike

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26382] - Update license terms

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26382

Update license terms

[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |2.0 Final

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]