License problems

[Adam Heath-2]

In the LICENSE file at the top of the ofbiz tree, there is a segment of
files that are under a BSD license.  However, what follows is *NOT* the
actual license they are under, but a generic BSD-template.  This means
we are not actually including the license each of those files is under.

Additionally, many files do *NOT* list the location where they were
fetched from; ie, no upstream location.  There is also no mention of the
author(which is somewhat related).

My suggestion in fixing this, is to use a format that is a bit more easy
for automated programs to parse; the current LICENSE file is rather
free-form.  Something along these lines:

Name: foobar
Homepage: http://www.foobar.com/
Version: 1.2-3rc1
Authors:
  Some Body <[hidden email]>
Description: short description
  long description
Files:
  framework/base/lib/foobar.jar
  framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/foo.js
  framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/bar.js
Common-License: APL 2.0
  or
Common-License:
  <license text>

You will note that this format is compatible with debian control files.
  However, I'm not married to it; any parseable file will do.

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

Before doing any changes to the format of the license file, we should  
carefully review the ASF guidelines, so that the license file (as it  
should be now now) will follow the same format used by the other ASF  
projects (and ASF recommendations).
I don't think the Authors section make a big sense for most (if not  
all) the Open Source projects we are using.

Jacopo

On Aug 10, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> In the LICENSE file at the top of the ofbiz tree, there is a segment  
> of files that are under a BSD license.  However, what follows is  
> *NOT* the actual license they are under, but a generic BSD-
> template.  This means we are not actually including the license each  
> of those files is under.
>
> Additionally, many files do *NOT* list the location where they were  
> fetched from; ie, no upstream location.  There is also no mention of  
> the author(which is somewhat related).
>
> My suggestion in fixing this, is to use a format that is a bit more  
> easy for automated programs to parse; the current LICENSE file is  
> rather free-form.  Something along these lines:
>
> Name: foobar
> Homepage: http://www.foobar.com/
> Version: 1.2-3rc1
> Authors:
> Some Body <[hidden email]>
> Description: short description
> long description
> Files:
> framework/base/lib/foobar.jar
> framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/foo.js
> framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/bar.js
> Common-License: APL 2.0
> or
> Common-License:
> <license text>
>
> You will note that this format is compatible with debian control  
> files.  However, I'm not married to it; any parseable file will do.

[BJ Freeman]

if I remember the discussion correctly, it was that since the
author(supposedly) was in the svn history, it was not necessary to have
the author in the header. I don't remember it being against the ASF policy.
From the few licenses I reviewed through the svn explorer they are more
verbose and varied than the one in ofbiz.
Httpd ver 2.2 see LICENSE 613311



Adam Heath sent the following on 8/9/2008 9:23 PM:

> In the LICENSE file at the top of the ofbiz tree, there is a segment of
> files that are under a BSD license.  However, what follows is *NOT* the
> actual license they are under, but a generic BSD-template.  This means
> we are not actually including the license each of those files is under.
>
> Additionally, many files do *NOT* list the location where they were
> fetched from; ie, no upstream location.  There is also no mention of the
> author(which is somewhat related).
>
> My suggestion in fixing this, is to use a format that is a bit more easy
> for automated programs to parse; the current LICENSE file is rather
> free-form.  Something along these lines:
>
> Name: foobar
> Homepage: http://www.foobar.com/
> Version: 1.2-3rc1
> Authors:
>  Some Body <[hidden email]>
> Description: short description
>  long description
> Files:
>  framework/base/lib/foobar.jar
>  framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/foo.js
>  framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/bar.js
> Common-License: APL 2.0
>  or
> Common-License:
>  <license text>
>
> You will note that this format is compatible with debian control files.
>  However, I'm not married to it; any parseable file will do.
>
>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

BJ Freeman wrote:
> if I remember the discussion correctly, it was that since the
> author(supposedly) was in the svn history, it was not necessary to have
> the author in the header. I don't remember it being against the ASF policy.
> From the few licenses I reviewed through the svn explorer they are more
> verbose and varied than the one in ofbiz.
> Httpd ver 2.2 see LICENSE 613311

The author is not in svn.  That author field is for the *upstream*
imported software, not for the ofbiz code.

Another issue: the LICENSE file included in all the ofbiz-built jars
should contain the *ofbiz* license; the jar files do *not* contain code
for external projects, so including all the other licenses is superfluous.

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

On Aug 10, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> if I remember the discussion correctly, it was that since the
>> author(supposedly) was in the svn history, it was not necessary to  
>> have
>> the author in the header. I don't remember it being against the ASF  
>> policy.
>> From the few licenses I reviewed through the svn explorer they are  
>> more
>> verbose and varied than the one in ofbiz.
>> Httpd ver 2.2 see LICENSE 613311
>
> The author is not in svn.  That author field is for the *upstream*  
> imported software, not for the ofbiz code.
>
> Another issue: the LICENSE file included in all the ofbiz-built jars  
> should contain the *ofbiz* license; the jar files do *not* contain  
> code for external projects, so including all the other licenses is  
> superfluous.

Adam,

with the premise that I don't know much about licenses and best  
practices around them, I know that we did a bunch of work to reach the  
acceptance of the strict rules of the ASF during our Incubation. There  
were al lot of discussions in the Incubator public mailing lists and  
in the OFBiz lists and also some ASF guys reviewed the License stuff  
in OFBiz at that time.
So, before we take any decision on the format and content of license  
artifacts in OFBiz, we should really understand and read all the  
requirements and directives of the ASF, maybe you already did this,  
and this would be great, but possibly you are using the pattern you  
have used for other projects, and them could not work for the ASF.

Just my 2 cents,

Jacopo