re[2]: velocity lovers...

[Rich Persaud]

Re: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10390294901&r=1&w=2

|  Where are we the working class who makes it work in this process?  Pawns 
|  in the game.  
|
|  -Andy

It may be motivating to remember that blog (from the colonies) is a candidate for the 
empire's OED:

http://www.oed.com/public/news/0206.htm

Pawns are transparent (landless) and social (ants).

   http://www.despair.com/sacrifice.html

Identity is increasingly social.  Opaque societies don't influence dictionaries.

   http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/locke/ch7-18c.htm#00419

All hail the mighty pawn. 
  

Rich

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

[Lawrence E. Rosen]

> Current drafts of the 2.0 license include a solution to this 
> issue, plus a whole bunch of other niceties.  Discussions of 
> the new license are happening on a mailing list dedicated to 
> that purpose.

Where is that mailing list?



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Any time man.  Any time.  

Scott Sanders wrote:

The structure of the JCP is the same as the structure of your average 
communist party, at least as I undestand it.
You have the party loyal whom run divied up industries (which 
can't be 
called industrialists), you have a strongman (Sun).  
Occasionally, this is a bid feudal with a rebelling 
industrialist, but 
the strongman tends to appease the rebelling industrialists 
because they are required to hold on to power.  

However, if the strongman shows weakness or starts fumbling the ball, 
the industrialists will sponsor a new strongman and
a coup is held.  

Once Sun screws this up enough IBM and others will move to 
Microsoft and 
we'll have the next phase of the show.  

Where are we the working class who makes it work in this 
process?  Pawns 
in the game.  

-Andy
   



Andy, this is an email that I must keep archived.  This is truly a gem.
Thank you.

Scott

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 


 





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: velocity lovers...

[Scott Sanders]

> The structure of the JCP is the same as the structure of your average 
> communist party, at least as I undestand it.
> You have the party loyal whom run divied up industries (which 
> can't be 
> called industrialists), you have a strongman (Sun).  
> Occasionally, this is a bid feudal with a rebelling 
> industrialist, but 
> the strongman tends to appease the rebelling industrialists 
> because they are required to hold on to power.  
> 
> However, if the strongman shows weakness or starts fumbling the ball, 
> the industrialists will sponsor a new strongman and
> a coup is held.  
> 
> Once Sun screws this up enough IBM and others will move to 
> Microsoft and 
> we'll have the next phase of the show.  
> 
> Where are we the working class who makes it work in this 
> process?  Pawns 
> in the game.  
> 
> -Andy


Andy, this is an email that I must keep archived.  This is truly a gem.
Thank you.

Scott

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Andrew C. Oliver]

The structure of the JCP is the same as the structure of your average 
communist party, at least as I undestand it.
You have the party loyal whom run divied up industries (which can't be 
called industrialists), you have a strongman (Sun).  
Occasionally, this is a bid feudal with a rebelling industrialist, but 
the strongman tends to appease the rebelling industrialists
because they are required to hold on to power.  

However, if the strongman shows weakness or starts fumbling the ball, 
the industrialists will sponsor a new strongman and
a coup is held.  

Once Sun screws this up enough IBM and others will move to Microsoft and 
we'll have the next phase of the show.  

Where are we the working class who makes it work in this process?  Pawns 
in the game.  

-Andy

Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

on 2002/12/4 5:57 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

Java Communist Party
   


LOL!

-jon

 





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 2002/12/4 5:57 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Java Communist Party

LOL!

-jon

-- 
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Andrew C. Oliver]

While I agree with everyhting you're saing.  I read that over twice and 
I'm like "Why?"
I mean why?  So lets say for a moment you're one of the "new breed" whom 
use that
epitomy of object orientation better known as Java Server Pages.  Well 
really, what does
this Java Server Faces add over Struts?  I don't really see any value 
added here.  

Sun seems desperately determined to hand the kingdom over.  Its a real 
good thing we have
an Oligarchy of tool vendors running the show.  Which means you need 
bloated garbage churned
out so they can sell the really big dollar stuff to make it work.  

Put that against the Microsoft business model of cornering the market 
with mass production/marketing/bundling
and I don't have a great deal of faith in it.  Not that Microsoft puts 
out quality... But I don't look at it and say
"Why???" or "What's the point?" so much as with the cruft thats coming 
out of the Java Communist Party..  Maybe
its just me.

-Andy

Wow. Java Server Faces really sucks ass. Much more than I could have ever
imagined. No wonder I didn't bother looking at it before. What a confusing,
over engineered, under thought out way to do things! I'm really surprised
that Sun thinks that anyone is going to use this crap and actually like it.

I can hear the UI designers now...

"What does this mean?"




   'javax.faces.validator.LengthValidator.MINIMUM'
   value='3'/>


I think it is really funny that the validation "code" is being put into the
templates. Let me guess, "you don't have to do that if you don't want to."

What happened to taking the APPLICATION LOGIC out of the View? If someone
even starts to say to me that JSF is anywhere close to MVC, I think I will
have to violently expel my lunch in their direction. Ha!

I'm completely amazed and disappointed that Sun is spending so much time,
energy and money towards creating so much crap.

Bah.

-jon

 





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Sun Is Losing Its Way

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Thanks Jon.  Here's the link. 
http://www.sys-con.com/java/article.cfm?id=1714

Its an okay article.  Could be a bit more in-depth I suppose, but I 
imagine all the people
who could write that are under gag order.

And if you're really depressed...  Here's a quick how to for doing 
C#/Mono  by yours
truly:

http://www.freeroller.net/page/acoliver/20021129  *I'm home with Mono*

-Andy


Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

Great guest editorial article (no web link yet it seems) in the November
Java Developers Journal that I suggest you read.

It briefly outlines how the JCP is screwing up the way that Sun manages
Java.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 


 





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Sun Is Losing Its Way

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 2002/12/4 4:52 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Great guest editorial article (no web link yet it seems) in the November
> Java Developers Journal that I suggest you read.
> 
> It briefly outlines how the JCP is screwing up the way that Sun manages
> Java.
> 
> -jon

Here is the link...

http://www.sys-con.com/java/article.cfm?id=1714

-jon

-- 
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Sun Is Losing Its Way

[Jon Scott Stevens]

Great guest editorial article (no web link yet it seems) in the November
Java Developers Journal that I suggest you read.

It briefly outlines how the JCP is screwing up the way that Sun manages
Java.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: velocity lovers...

[Chris Bailey]

While I haven't looked at Faces yet, this seems to be a not uncommmon trend
at Sun.  Look at the logging API in Java 1.4.  Why?  log4j is better, pretty
much a defacto standard, and freely available under a license that nobody
can complain about.  It is sad that they felt they had to put logging in
just to have another feature bullet point.  Faces seems to be another step
in the wrong direction, somewhat like JSP.  It is odd that in much J2EE
literatue, tons of EJB literature, and even Sun's J2EE "Blueprints" books,
that they harp on MVC so much, yet they have things like JSP and Faces that
don't do a good job ov that.  Sure, you can sort of munge JSP to do some
separation, but, well, I obviously don't need to say anymore about that
here...

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: velocity lovers...
>
>
> on 2002/12/4 9:20 AM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity
> >
> > -Andy
>
> Wow. Java Server Faces really sucks ass. Much more than I could have ever
> imagined. No wonder I didn't bother looking at it before. What a
> confusing,
> over engineered, under thought out way to do things! I'm really surprised
> that Sun thinks that anyone is going to use this crap and
> actually like it.
>
> I can hear the UI designers now...
>
> "What does this mean?"
>
> 
>     className='javax.faces.validator.LengthValidator'/>
>       'javax.faces.validator.LengthValidator.MINIMUM'
> value='3'/>
> 
>
> I think it is really funny that the validation "code" is being
> put into the
> templates. Let me guess, "you don't have to do that if you don't want to."
>
> What happened to taking the APPLICATION LOGIC out of the View? If someone
> even starts to say to me that JSF is anywhere close to MVC, I think I will
> have to violently expel my lunch in their direction. Ha!
>
> I'm completely amazed and disappointed that Sun is spending so much time,
> energy and money towards creating so much crap.
>
> Bah.
>
> -jon
>
> --
> StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
> 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
> http://studioz.tv/
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 2002/12/4 11:30 AM, "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> All this fuss is about 34 lines of text? I don't get it. Why not just use
> the full license and forget about whether or not the short form is OK?
> 
> --
> Martin Cooper

+1

-jon

-- 
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 2002/12/4 9:20 AM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity
> 
> -Andy

Wow. Java Server Faces really sucks ass. Much more than I could have ever
imagined. No wonder I didn't bother looking at it before. What a confusing,
over engineered, under thought out way to do things! I'm really surprised
that Sun thinks that anyone is going to use this crap and actually like it.

I can hear the UI designers now...

"What does this mean?"


 
 


I think it is really funny that the validation "code" is being put into the
templates. Let me guess, "you don't have to do that if you don't want to."

What happened to taking the APPLICATION LOGIC out of the View? If someone
even starts to say to me that JSF is anywhere close to MVC, I think I will
have to violently expel my lunch in their direction. Ha!

I'm completely amazed and disappointed that Sun is spending so much time,
energy and money towards creating so much crap.

Bah.

-jon

-- 
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:

> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:12:37 +1100
> From: Tim Vernum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Jakarta General List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Short Apache licence for source files
>
>
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to
> > "this software" not to any specific file.
>
> IANAL, IAN-Roy, IAN-ASF, but...
>
> The license does not give any indication of what "this software" is.
> i.e. It doesn't define the scope of the piece of work to which it applies.
>
> Thus when Roy said:
> 'The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the
>scope of what was covered beyond "this file".'
>
> It means just that - the 1.1 license doesn't define what it applies to.
> It refers vaguely to "THIS SOFTWARE", but that's all.
>
> The concern is that if it is not directly included within the source files
> then the scope of "THIS SOFTWARE" is unclear.
> Does it include all the source?
> What about the included jars?
> What if those jars are not under the ASF license?
>
> This not the case in the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) because
> Term 0 of the GPL defines (ot attempts to define) the scope of the work.
>
> My understanding is that License 2.0 will include a similar item (but I'm
> basing that on guesswork).
>

Current drafts of the 2.0 license include a solution to this issue, plus a
whole bunch of other niceties.  Discussions of the new license are
happening on a mailing list dedicated to that purpose.

In the mean time, I believe all Apache projects should treat the Board
member comments quoted above and elsewhere in this thread (and taken out
of much larger discussions) as authoritative direction to ASF committers
that we should use the long form of the ASF 1.1 license in every source
file checked in to Apache CV repositories.

It doesn't matter whether it's legally required (to get around the "this
software" interpretation) or not.  It matters that the ASF Board
(representing the foudnation, which is the owner of all this code) told us
to do it that way.  That's all the reason any of us should need.

> While it should be clear to normal people what "this software" means,
> lawyers have a nasty habit of not seeing the obvious :)
>

Craig McClanahan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Short Apache licence for source files

[Tim Vernum]

From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to
> "this software" not to any specific file.

IANAL, IAN-Roy, IAN-ASF, but...

The license does not give any indication of what "this software" is.
i.e. It doesn't define the scope of the piece of work to which it applies.

Thus when Roy said:
'The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the
   scope of what was covered beyond "this file".'

It means just that - the 1.1 license doesn't define what it applies to.
It refers vaguely to "THIS SOFTWARE", but that's all.

The concern is that if it is not directly included within the source files
then the scope of "THIS SOFTWARE" is unclear.
Does it include all the source?
What about the included jars?
What if those jars are not under the ASF license?

This not the case in the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) because
Term 0 of the GPL defines (ot attempts to define) the scope of the work.

My understanding is that License 2.0 will include a similar item (but I'm
basing that on guesswork).

While it should be clear to normal people what "this software" means,
lawyers have a nasty habit of not seeing the obvious :)


NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright material of 
Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended recipient of this email 
you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or 
any attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Bank does not 
guarantee the integrity of any emails or any attached files. The views or opinions 
expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie 
Bank. 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: TestMaker and Jakarta

[Frank Cohen]

>> Your "viable community" comment has me puzzled. Would you please explain
>> your thoughts on the makings of a viable Apache community? I'm very
>> flexible and creative. Your comments might show me a better way of running
>> this project.
> 
> Essentially it comes down to having a larger more diverse community. Warnings
> signs in your email "I respond to 90% of them myself.", "While this is still
> primarily a solo show". If there was 4-5 people who were consistently active
> this would be less of an issue.


That makes sense to me. I'd like to go steady for a while too before getting
your pin. :-)




> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter Donald
> ---
> Don't take life too seriously --
> you'll never get out of it alive.
> ---
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: IDE Developers' guide

[Dominique Devienne]

Ah, it wasn't an acronym after all, just 'extreme contempt'! Nice... --DD

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: IDE Developers' guide

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bah

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: TestMaker and Jakarta

[Peter Donald]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:21, Frank Cohen wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out the Incubator. It looks like a fine way to get
> started. I will follow-up with the Incubator process later this month when
> things quiet down for the holidays.

kool.

> Your "viable community" comment has me puzzled. Would you please explain
> your thoughts on the makings of a viable Apache community? I'm very
> flexible and creative. Your comments might show me a better way of running
> this project.

Essentially it comes down to having a larger more diverse community. Warnings 
signs in your email "I respond to 90% of them myself.", "While this is still 
primarily a solo show". If there was 4-5 people who were consistently active 
this would be less of an issue.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
---
 Don't take life too seriously -- 
  you'll never get out of it alive.
---


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: TestMaker and Jakarta

[Frank Cohen]

Thanks for pointing out the Incubator. It looks like a fine way to get
started. I will follow-up with the Incubator process later this month when
things quiet down for the holidays.

Your "viable community" comment has me puzzled. Would you please explain
your thoughts on the makings of a viable Apache community? I'm very flexible
and creative. Your comments might show me a better way of running this
project.

Thanks.

-Frank

-- 
Frank Cohen, Founder, http://www.PushToTest.com, phone: 408 374 7426

PushToTest offers free open-source test software and global services
solutions that test, monitor and automate Web Service systems for
functionality, scalability and performance.


> From: Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:31:02 +1100
> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: TestMaker and Jakarta
> 
> I know some people that are big fans of TestMaker and would love to see it at
> Apache. The problem is that Testmaker does not fit our requirements for a
> community. In the end it doesn't matter about the quality of the code, the
> number of users, downloads etc unless you do have a viable community.
> 
> If you are not deterred by this then I would recomend tht you go over to
> incubator.apache.org andsubmit it there where you can hopefully "grow" a
> community in Apache style.
> 
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:20, Frank Cohen wrote:
>> I wanted to bring the Jakarta general list up to date on my progress with
>> TestMaker. Here's how the project stands now:
>> 
>> 1) The PushToTest web site that supports TestMaker is getting 110-160
>> unique visitors a day. The traffic comes mostly from Google searches.
>> Additional traffic comes from a variety of software development, QA and IT
>> sites. Plus, I have 5 articles on Web Service development and scalability
>> issues on IBM developerWorks that link to the PushToTest site.
>> 
>> 2) TestMaker downloads average 100-300 per day. The difference from the Web
>> site visitors is that TestMaker is listed on Freshmeat with a blind link to
>> download the software. Registration for announcements is optional and so
>> far 2165 people have registered. I send newsletters every 5-6 weeks.
>> 
>> 3) Support email lists get 5-10 postings per week. I respond to 90% of them
>> myself. Replies also come from contributors and committers.
>> 
>> 4) TestMaker 3.1 was completed on November 12, 2003. The next version is
>> 3.2 which should be up by the end of December and will feature
>> SMTP/POP3/IMAP protocol handlers.
>> 
>> 5) Coding on the .NET version of TestMaker began on November 2, 2002. The
>> new software will feature a C# library of protocol handlers and primarily
>> use VB.NET as its scripting language. I will author a series of articles
>> and likely a book on testing .NET Web Services in support of the code.
>> TestMaker .NET will be licensed under an Apache-style license as is the
>> current TestMaker 3.1. We should be done in Spring, with beta in February.
>> 
>> 6) I am earning consulting money being the "go-to" guy for enterprises
>> needing to solve scalability problems in interoperating systems, especially
>> Web Services. I'm putting food on my families' table by customizing
>> TestMaker to meet enterprise customer needs. While this is still primarily
>> a solo show, 6 people provided contributions to TestMaker 3.1 and 2 more
>> are committers.
>> 
>> I am still interested in donating TestMaker to Jakarta.
>> 
>> -Frank
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter Donald
> 
> "Liberty means responsibility. That is
> why most men dread it." - Locke
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Martin Cooper]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> At 12:13 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
> >Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> >>At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>
...
> >To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short license
> >is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a request for
> >clarification to the board too.
>
> The license (version 1.1) is 41 lines long whereas the copyright notice
> plus the reference to the license is just 7 lines.

All this fuss is about 34 lines of text? I don't get it. Why not just use
the full license and forget about whether or not the short form is OK?

--
Martin Cooper


>
> >--
> >Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Ceki
>
> TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
> others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: velocity lovers...

[Geir Magnusson Jr .]

Dave's da man...

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:20 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity

-Andy



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   

For additional commands, e-mail: 



--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-355-2219(w)
Adeptra, Inc.   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

velocity lovers...

[Andrew C. Oliver]

http://www.miceda-data.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2002/12/04#Java/velocity

-Andy



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[mohammad nabil]

hi all,
  well, 35 emails till now :s
-mohammad







From: Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Short Apache licence for source files
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:52:36 -0500

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


2) Good faith but cautious interpretation

In this case, someone is worried that the license applies to the
license file itself but not to other files. Thus, he or she decides
not use our software for fear of violating copyright law. Isn't this a
bit farfetched? Couldn't we address this concern in the license FAQ?


I happen to work for a large corporation which has an annoying tendency to 
err towards the cautious side when making such interpretations.

Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice
but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen?


Judgement calls like this are always relative.  It certainly is possible 
that someone caught in a situation where they are required to make a 
cautious interpretation might feel less than charitably inclined towards 
the citizens who made choices against the recommended practices of their 
community, particularly when they find such choices making their life more 
difficult.

- Sam Ruby



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 


_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Sam Ruby]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


2) Good faith but cautious interpretation

In this case, someone is worried that the license applies to the
license file itself but not to other files. Thus, he or she decides
not use our software for fear of violating copyright law. Isn't this a
bit farfetched? Couldn't we address this concern in the license FAQ? 

I happen to work for a large corporation which has an annoying tendency 
to err towards the cautious side when making such interpretations.

Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice
but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen?


Judgement calls like this are always relative.  It certainly is possible 
that someone caught in a situation where they are required to make a 
cautious interpretation might feel less than charitably inclined towards 
the citizens who made choices against the recommended practices of their 
community, particularly when they find such choices making their life 
more difficult.

- Sam Ruby



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [DRAFT1] Jakarta Newsletter - November 2002

[James Strachan]

From: "Jeff Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't suppose you'd consider putting a link to XMLUnit
> http://xmlunit.sf.net/ in the Jelly section. It's always good to try a
> bit of shameless publicity seeking ;-)

Its pretty well hidden, but there is a link in the Jelly tag reference...

http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/jelly/tags.html#jelly:xmlunit

as well as in the javadoc

http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/jelly/apidocs/org/apache/commons/j
elly/tags/xmlunit/package-summary.html

so there is at least some XMLUnit publicity there :-)

James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 07:31 04.12.2002 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:

Stefan Mainz wrote:

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


I do not understand what Roy means by "the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file'" Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
copyright law apply to anything beyond the file?

Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), but:
If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says
_this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which 
referes to the file.

IANAL either.  My understanding matches Stefan's above.  If you include 
the current license by reference, the ASF appears to be well protected, 
but you may not be achieving what you want.  People who make use of the 
code you produce may some day be surprised to find that the only thing 
they actually have permission to make use of is the LICENSE FILE itself, 
subject of course to the terms contained therein.

OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to
"this software" not to any specific file.

I think we all agree that referring to the license means that the
terms of the license apply, at least that is the intention.

There are three possible cases.

1) Bad faith interpretation

Someone decides that the license applies to the license file itself
and not to other files. If the license does not apply, then that
someone does not have the legal right to copy our software.

I think this is the case Roy was referring to in his comments -- the
comments I forwarded earlier without permission.

2) Good faith but cautious interpretation

In this case, someone is worried that the license applies to the
license file itself but not to other files. Thus, he or she decides
not use our software for fear of violating copyright law. Isn't this a
bit farfetched? Couldn't we address this concern in the license FAQ?

3) Intended interpretation

The Apache license applies even by reference as intended. No problems there.


The next license is intended to fix this.


Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice
but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen?


- Sam Ruby


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Steven Noels]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:


Should or must? :-)



"Let your yes be yes, no be no"

Should means "should".


http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt


--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at  http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Martin Poeschl]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


I was trying to convey that the word "should" has different meanings. It
can be interpreted as a recommendation or alternatively as an
obligation. For example,

1) One should brush one's teeth. Otherwise, you'll get bad
teeth. However, not brushing your teeth does not make you a bad
citizen.

2) One should be respectful of others. Being disrespectful or violent
makes you a bad citizen.

In 1) SHOULD is a recommendation whereas in 2) SHOULD really means MUST.

Thus, in the sentence, "we should use include the license in each
file," does SHOULD mean MUST or is it just a recommendation?


You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, 
go ask directly and eventually report back.

Michael A. Smith actually went to the board a few weeks ago. I did not
see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not
officially take a position on this, or until there is an official
document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations.



My words: "Currently we should use the full version."



Should or must? :-) 

taken from the license:

* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

_must_ 

martin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:

At 12:13 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:



Ceki Gülcü wrote:


At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

[..]

You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go 
ask directly and eventually report back.

Michael A. Smith actually went to the board a few weeks ago. I did not
see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not
officially take a position on this, or until there is an official
document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations.


My words: "Currently we should use the full version."


Should or must? :-)


"Let your yes be yes, no be no"

Should means "should".


To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short 
license is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a 
request for clarification to the board too.

The license (version 1.1) is 41 lines long whereas the copyright notice 
plus the reference to the license is just 7 lines.

I am 1.68 meters (28 years old) while my sister is 1.57 (22 years old).

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 12:02 04.12.2002 +0100, Stefan Mainz wrote:

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


I do not understand what Roy means by "the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file'" Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
copyright law apply to anything beyond the file?



Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), but:

If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says
_this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which 
referes to the file.

I am not sure I understand.

In our particular case, that is the Apache Software License version
1.1, the license talks about "this software" not about any specific
file.

Source: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE and
   http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

The copyright notice + reference text we are talking about has the
form:

/*
 * Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
 *
 * This software is published under the terms of the Apache Software License
 * version 1.1, a copy of which has been included  with this distribution in
 * the LICENSE.txt file.
 */

How could the situation you mention arise in our case?


Stefan


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 12:13 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:



Ceki Gülcü wrote:

At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:


IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, &&|| board members have said to use the full 
version till version 2.0 arrives.
Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to use a reference to
the license although there is no explicit prohibition either.


You mean that everything can be done if it's not prohibited explicitly?
Come on, what's this, a policed community?



I was trying to convey that the word "should" has different meanings. It
can be interpreted as a recommendation or alternatively as an
obligation. For example,

1) One should brush one's teeth. Otherwise, you'll get bad
teeth. However, not brushing your teeth does not make you a bad
citizen.

2) One should be respectful of others. Being disrespectful or violent
makes you a bad citizen.

In 1) SHOULD is a recommendation whereas in 2) SHOULD really means MUST.

Thus, in the sentence, "we should use include the license in each
file," does SHOULD mean MUST or is it just a recommendation?


You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go ask 
directly and eventually report back.
Michael A. Smith actually went to the board a few weeks ago. I did not
see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not
officially take a position on this, or until there is an official
document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations.


My words: "Currently we should use the full version."


Should or must? :-)


To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short license 
is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a request for 
clarification to the board too.

The license (version 1.1) is 41 lines long whereas the copyright notice 
plus the reference to the license is just 7 lines.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Sam Ruby]

Stefan Mainz wrote:

Ceki Gülcü wrote:


I do not understand what Roy means by "the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file'" Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
copyright law apply to anything beyond the file?


Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), 
but:

If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says
_this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which 
referes to the file.

IANAL either.  My understanding matches Stefan's above.  If you include 
the current license by reference, the ASF appears to be well protected, 
but you may not be achieving what you want.  People who make use of the 
code you produce may some day be surprised to find that the only thing 
they actually have permission to make use of is the LICENSE FILE itself, 
subject of course to the terms contained therein.

The next license is intended to fix this.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:

At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:


IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, &&|| board members have said to use the full 
version till version 2.0 arrives.

Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to use a reference to
the license although there is no explicit prohibition either.


You mean that everything can be done if it's not prohibited explicitly?
Come on, what's this, a policed community?


You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go 
ask directly and eventually report back.

Michael A. Smith actually went to the board a few weeks ago. I did not
see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not
officially take a position on this, or until there is an official
document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations.


My words: "Currently we should use the full version."

To stop this once and for all, since it seems that having a short 
license is very important for some (still don't know why), I've sent a 
request for clarification to the board too.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 10:43 04.12.2002 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote:


As was said : it is simply not allowed by the board.


I do not mean to offend anyone, but hearsay is not good enough. As
long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not officially take a
position on this, or until there is an official document on this
topic, one should not make absolute statements.

Yes, it is theoretically safer to include the license in each file, but
including a copyright notice followed by reference to the license
should be good enough (because it makes sense.)


Mvgr,
Martin


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Stefan Mainz]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:



I do not understand what Roy means by "the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file'" Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
copyright law apply to anything beyond the file?



Propably i am not the right person to answer this (not being a lawyer), 
but:

If you refer to a file which includes the license and the license says
_this file_ the license applies to the license file, not the onw which 
referes to the file.

Stefan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 11:06 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:


IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, &&|| board members have said to use the full version 
till version 2.0 arrives.

Well, as far as I know, there is no permission to use a reference to
the license although there is no explicit prohibition either.


You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go ask 
directly and eventually report back.

Michael A. Smith actually went to the board a few weeks ago. I did not
see a closure. As long as an ASF official (board, PMC) does not
officially take a position on this, or until there is an official
document on this topic, one should not make absolute affirmations.


--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [DRAFT1] Jakarta Newsletter - November 2002

[Jeff Martin]

Don't suppose you'd consider putting a link to XMLUnit
http://xmlunit.sf.net/ in the Jelly section. It's always good to try a
bit of shameless publicity seeking ;-)
-- 
Jeff Martin

Memetic Engineer

http://www.custommonkey.org/ 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: TestMaker and Jakarta

[Peter Donald]

I know some people that are big fans of TestMaker and would love to see it at 
Apache. The problem is that Testmaker does not fit our requirements for a 
community. In the end it doesn't matter about the quality of the code, the 
number of users, downloads etc unless you do have a viable community.

If you are not deterred by this then I would recomend tht you go over to 
incubator.apache.org andsubmit it there where you can hopefully "grow" a 
community in Apache style. 

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:20, Frank Cohen wrote:
> I wanted to bring the Jakarta general list up to date on my progress with
> TestMaker. Here's how the project stands now:
>
> 1) The PushToTest web site that supports TestMaker is getting 110-160
> unique visitors a day. The traffic comes mostly from Google searches.
> Additional traffic comes from a variety of software development, QA and IT
> sites. Plus, I have 5 articles on Web Service development and scalability
> issues on IBM developerWorks that link to the PushToTest site.
>
> 2) TestMaker downloads average 100-300 per day. The difference from the Web
> site visitors is that TestMaker is listed on Freshmeat with a blind link to
> download the software. Registration for announcements is optional and so
> far 2165 people have registered. I send newsletters every 5-6 weeks.
>
> 3) Support email lists get 5-10 postings per week. I respond to 90% of them
> myself. Replies also come from contributors and committers.
>
> 4) TestMaker 3.1 was completed on November 12, 2003. The next version is
> 3.2 which should be up by the end of December and will feature
> SMTP/POP3/IMAP protocol handlers.
>
> 5) Coding on the .NET version of TestMaker began on November 2, 2002. The
> new software will feature a C# library of protocol handlers and primarily
> use VB.NET as its scripting language. I will author a series of articles
> and likely a book on testing .NET Web Services in support of the code.
> TestMaker .NET will be licensed under an Apache-style license as is the
> current TestMaker 3.1. We should be done in Spring, with beta in February.
>
> 6) I am earning consulting money being the "go-to" guy for enterprises
> needing to solve scalability problems in interoperating systems, especially
> Web Services. I'm putting food on my families' table by customizing
> TestMaker to meet enterprise customer needs. While this is still primarily
> a solo show, 6 people provided contributions to TestMaker 3.1 and 2 more
> are committers.
>
> I am still interested in donating TestMaker to Jakarta.
>
> -Frank

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald

"Liberty means responsibility. That is 
  why most men dread it." - Locke
 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Ceki Gülcü wrote:

At 07:54 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:


Currently we should use the full version.
There will be a short version of the next 2.0 license that will be 
equally protecting from a legal POV, but in the meantime use the full 
version.


Why? What is wrong with a copyright notice followed by a reference to
the license? The whole world does it. Why shouldn't we?


IANAL and not the one to decide.
IIRC IIUC the board, &&|| board members have said to use the full 
version till version 2.0 arrives.

You are free to take my word for it, or if you deem it necessary, go ask 
directly and eventually report back.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Martin van den Bemt]

On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 09:59, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 07:54 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >Currently we should use the full version.
> >There will be a short version of the next 2.0 license that will be equally 
> >protecting from a legal POV, but in the meantime use the full version.
> 
> Why? What is wrong with a copyright notice followed by a reference to
> the license? The whole world does it. Why shouldn't we?

As was said : it is simply not allowed by the board.

Mvgr,
Martin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Stefan Bodewig]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Ceki Gülc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What am I missing?

Not sure whether you are missing anything at all.  I don't understand
the US copyright law that well (I could tell you a lot about the
German law, but still IANAL).  But from you quoting Roy:

>>The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to
>>define the scope of what was covered beyond "this file".  As
>>such, the board has not approved its use by reference for our own
>>products.

I think, the last sentence is why we should stick to the full license
text until using some short form is OK with License 2.0.

Stefan

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 07:54 04.12.2002 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

Currently we should use the full version.
There will be a short version of the next 2.0 license that will be equally 
protecting from a legal POV, but in the meantime use the full version.

Why? What is wrong with a copyright notice followed by a reference to
the license? The whole world does it. Why shouldn't we?


--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Short Apache licence for source files

[Ceki Gülcü]

Given that for works published after March 1, 1989 it is not even
necessary to place a copyright notice to benefit from copyright law
protection, I do not see why the long form is absolutely
necessary. Moreover, the next version of the Apache Software License
will specifically allow the short form. It may be slightly better to
include the whole license in certain obscure circumstances but that
does mean that the reference to the license (a.k.a. the short form) is
useless and that it should be disallowed.

Here is what Roy Fielding had to say on the subject. I am quoting
without explicit permission hoping that he will not mind. :-(



  > and inclusion by reference isn't suddenly becoming official with the
  > 2.0 licence; until we hear counsel that says its safe, we most likely
  > won't permit it regardless of the size of the licence text.

  WTF?  Of course it is safe, and we've already had several lawyers
  review it, not to mention ample evidence from the MPL and GPL that
  other lawyers believe it is safe with the proper reference text.  The
  proposed 2.0 license text was specifically written to support
  inclusion by reference.

  The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the
  scope of what was covered beyond "this file".  As such, the board has
  not approved its use by reference for our own products.

  Even so, it is still "safe" (albeit confusing) to use it by reference
  provided that the file starts with a proper copyright line and
  "All rights reserved."  After all, our license simply spells out the
  conditions under which we reduce our own rights -- it doesn't matter
  whether or not the user can see the full agreement because without
  the agreement they cannot legally copy the file at all.

  Roy



I do not understand what Roy means by "the scope of what was covered
beyond 'this file'" Copyright law only protects the expression of an
idea, so I am baffled by what is meant by the scope beyond the file,
that is the written expression of the software developer. How can
copyright law apply to anything beyond the file?

Anyway, in the last paragraph Roy makes it clear that without the
licence the software cannot be legally copied. Thus, asserting the
Apache copyright in each file and referencing the Apache Software
License should be sufficient to protect our copyright.

What am I missing? Was there ever a closure to this question?



At 08:48 04.12.2002 +0100, you wrote:

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Darrell DeBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't know where it started, but if someone can someone tell me
> definitively that this is against ASF rules, I will move to rectify
> the situation.

Roy Fielding and several other board members have repeatedly stated
that the short version is not acceptable IIRC.  License 2.0 is
supposed to help.

Stefan

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: