[QVote] Where to put licenses?
Actually we have more important things to do than discussing where the licenses should be stored. But as it shouldn't be *just me* deciding this, just a quick vote about it. From a users POV putting all in the legal directory makes more sense than to put it next to each jar file. So, if noone is against it, I will move all of them into the legal directory again. Please respond only if you're against it. Thanks Carsten Carsten Ziegeler Open Source Group, SN AG http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: [QVote] Where to put licenses?
Carsten Ziegeler cziegeler at s-und-n.de writes: Actually we have more important things to do than discussing where the licenses should be stored. But as it shouldn't be *just me* deciding this, just a quick vote about it. From a users POV putting all in the legal directory makes more sense than to put it next to each jar file. So, if noone is against it, I will move all of them into the legal directory again. Please respond only if you're against it. Sorry, in the last days I only read the most mails without any participating in discussions. Maybe I should not add my comment to a vote thread but here it is: IMO it's not that important where the licenses are stored though it might be a help for the users, but who checks all the licenses before using a package? The Apache brand and Apache's license policies almost assure that I can use the package without any restrictions. I only have to stay compatible to the Apache license itself. So the developer's part remain: Important is the file ending. It should at least be one for all as it is .license at the moment, .license.txt might be even better. I'm ok with having a license for every jar, the possible different release times for subpackages like Avalon Excalibur even seem to make this necessary. But what I absolutely don't like is the adding of the package version to the license file. What's it for? A comparison between package-xyz-1.23.45.jar and package-xyz.license.txt can also be done without any problem. It's useless remove and readd of files to CVS IMO. Adding this logic to the test script/check-jars.xsl/gump or what ever is much more clever. Joerg
Re: [QVote] Where to put licenses?
On 03.03.2004 14:42, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: But what I absolutely don't like is the adding of the package version to the license file. What's it for? A comparison between package-xyz-1.23.45.jar and package-xyz.license.txt can also be done without any problem. It's useless remove and readd of files to CVS IMO. That's simple. As we learned recently, the license might change between versions! So having the version number in the license name will more clearly show that updating a jar has to go in combination with (perhaps) updating the license. If e.g. someone of us had updated Jisp to 3.0 I bet that noone would ever have noticed that we actually couldn't use that version as the jisp.license we had in our CVS was still compatible. A valid point as it attracts attention Adding this logic to the test script/check-jars.xsl/gump or what ever is much more clever. As soon as there is a script we *could* remove the version number. But I think not any sooner. The script would not help with the above point. Or do you want to check the content of the license file?? This would mean an either or, not an it depends. Joerg
RE: [QVote] Where to put licenses?
Joerg Heinicke wrote: On 03.03.2004 14:42, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: But what I absolutely don't like is the adding of the package version to the license file. What's it for? A comparison between package-xyz-1.23.45.jar and package-xyz.license.txt can also be done without any problem. It's useless remove and readd of files to CVS IMO. That's simple. As we learned recently, the license might change between versions! So having the version number in the license name will more clearly show that updating a jar has to go in combination with (perhaps) updating the license. If e.g. someone of us had updated Jisp to 3.0 I bet that noone would ever have noticed that we actually couldn't use that version as the jisp.license we had in our CVS was still compatible. A valid point as it attracts attention Adding this logic to the test script/check-jars.xsl/gump or what ever is much more clever. As soon as there is a script we *could* remove the version number. But I think not any sooner. The script would not help with the above point. Or do you want to check the content of the license file?? This would mean an either or, not an it depends. Exactly my point (although I might not have made it that clear), a script can't test the contents of the license, that's why I wrote we *could* remove the version number. I still think, having the version numbers helps more than any script can do. If you're using scripts you tend to rely on the scripts without assuring that the scripts really do what you want. Anyways, it seems noone is really against moving all licenses back to the legal directory and if someone comes up with a script we will see if it helps or not. Carsten
Re: [QVote] Where to put licenses?
On 03.03.2004 22:51, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Anyways, it seems noone is really against moving all licenses back to the legal directory and if someone comes up with a script we will see if it helps or not. The script (or the adding of license to gump, this is what I would prefer much more) is just for seeing if a license file exists for the jar. Whether it's the correct one must still be done by hand of course. Maybe additional functionality like license content checking will be added to gump, but we should not do this with a proprietary script. Joerg
RE: [QVote] Where to put licenses?
Carsten Ziegeler dijo: Joerg Heinicke wrote: On 03.03.2004 14:42, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: But what I absolutely don't like is the adding of the package version to the license file. What's it for? A comparison between package-xyz-1.23.45.jar and package-xyz.license.txt can also be done without any problem. It's useless remove and readd of files to CVS IMO. That's simple. As we learned recently, the license might change between versions! So having the version number in the license name will more clearly show that updating a jar has to go in combination with (perhaps) updating the license. If e.g. someone of us had updated Jisp to 3.0 I bet that noone would ever have noticed that we actually couldn't use that version as the jisp.license we had in our CVS was still compatible. A valid point as it attracts attention Adding this logic to the test script/check-jars.xsl/gump or what ever is much more clever. As soon as there is a script we *could* remove the version number. But I think not any sooner. The script would not help with the above point. Or do you want to check the content of the license file?? This would mean an either or, not an it depends. Exactly my point (although I might not have made it that clear), a script can't test the contents of the license, that's why I wrote we *could* remove the version number. I still think, having the version numbers helps more than any script can do. If you're using scripts you tend to rely on the scripts without assuring that the scripts really do what you want. Anyways, it seems noone is really against moving all licenses back to the legal directory and if someone comes up with a script we will see if it helps or not. I really don't understand why the license files are travelling across all the source code. :-D Before committing any jar, we review the license to check changes against the old one. The peer review is the best we can do. In short, licenses in legal dir. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
