License info
jason-s opened this issue · 7 comments
What license are you releasing this code under? I couldn't find the license information.
It sounds very useful to me, and I hope it's one of the non-viral licenses (e.g. MIT/BSD/Apache/Mozilla).
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:18 AM, jason-s
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:
What license are you releasing this code under? I couldn't find the license information.
It sounds very useful to me, and I hope it's one of the non-viral licenses (e.g. MIT/BSD/Apache/Mozilla).
License is Apache License, and one place where it should be specified
is in Maven pom.xml (arguably not a highly visible place :) ).
So non-viral, as this is important for many use cases, including using
at daytime job.
-+ Tatu +-
great, thank you!
Np.
Could you please reopen? (for two reasons)
-
you really need to post this more prominently (as you said, arguably not a highly visible place)
-
I'm not sure the Apache license has been properly applied here; just including
<licenses> <license> <name>The Apache Software License, Version 2.0</name> <url>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt</url> <distribution>repo</distribution> </license> </licenses>
in pom.xml doesn't necessarily constitute proper licensing. From what I can tell (I'm trying to become more educated w/r/t open-source licensing) the license has to be prominently included in the source code itself, and you need a statement asserting you are the Licensor. (e.g. Copyright <year> <copyright-holder's-name>)
I will add a note to wiki page.
As to source code, AFAIK there is no such requirement, and I really do not like adding boilerplate crap on source code which has very little benefit to users. Typically what I have done has been to add a separate LICENSE file, which is a possibility. I am open to minimally intrusive alternative changes, but do not have much time to spend on working around assumed/potential legal concerns.
Typically what I have done has been to add a separate LICENSE file, which is a possibility.
That's what I'd suggest.
but do not have much time to spend on working around assumed/potential legal concerns.
Absolutely! This wasn't intended to throw a monkey wrench into things...
I'm coming from both a (potential) contributor's point of view and a consumer's point of view, where in both cases the choice to contribute/use java-classmate is not mine (but rather my company's) -- I would be looking to point Someone With Legal Expertise at the right information so that they could quickly give their stamp of approval.
Ok, we are on same page then. :-)
I added notes to various readme's, I'll try to see how my other projects do this (like Jackson).
I will probably add some simple copyright notes too, just try to avoid having copyright preambles that are longer than actual code...