[VOTE] ASL2 header in README files?

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Devs,

There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz README files.

One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header

But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.

Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to define our policy.

So please vote

[+1] include a header in all README files

[-1] do not include a header in any README files

[0] Undecided

I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !

Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Devs,
>
> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
> README files.
>
> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>
> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>
> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to define
> our policy.
>
> So please vote
>
> [+1] include a header in all README files
>
> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>
> [0] Undecided
>
> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>
> Jacques
>
>

In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and not
by OFBiz.

Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF license
policy?

If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
violate the following [*]:

"A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
file's creativity, add the license header to the file."

In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup

In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
people who spent time crafting its content.

When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the file
doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching a
name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
*personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

Also, if I recall, it was initially decided to not include a license header
to the main README.md file in the root folder: however now that the file
represents an important part of the OFBiz documentation, I think we should
revisit that decision and add a license header to it.

Jacopo

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>> README files.
>>
>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>
>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>
>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
>> define our policy.
>>
>> So please vote
>>
>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>
>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>
>> [0] Undecided
>>
>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and not
> by OFBiz.
>
> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
> license policy?
>
> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
> violate the following [*]:
>
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements
> or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>
> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>
> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
> people who spent time crafting its content.
>
> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the file
> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
> a name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
>
>
>
>

[taher]

I agree Jacopo. After a little bit of research I realized that we can add
the header license without affecting the format by using html comment
format <!-- comment -->

Therefore I think it is wise to keep the license header in all of our files

On Sep 16, 2016 11:32 AM, "Jacopo Cappellato" <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Also, if I recall, it was initially decided to not include a license header
> to the main README.md file in the root folder: however now that the file
> represents an important part of the OFBiz documentation, I think we should
> revisit that decision and add a license header to it.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Devs,
> >>
> >> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
> >> README files.
> >>
> >> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> >> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
> >>
> >> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README
> files
> >> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
> >>
> >> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
> >> define our policy.
> >>
> >> So please vote
> >>
> >> [+1] include a header in all README files
> >>
> >> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
> >>
> >> [0] Undecided
> >>
> >> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
> > In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
> > My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
> > ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
> > license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and
> not
> > by OFBiz.
> >
> > Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
> > license policy?
> >
> > If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
> > violate the following [*]:
> >
> > "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements
> > or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a
> file
> > does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
> > file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
> >
> > In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
> > example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
> >
> > In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by
> different
> > people who spent time crafting its content.
> >
> > When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the
> document
> > that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the
> file
> > doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
> > But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
> > a name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
> > Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
> > *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license
> header.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> > [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o

Jacques


Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>> README files.
>>
>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>
>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>
>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to define
>> our policy.
>>
>> So please vote
>>
>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>
>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>
>> [0] Undecided
>>
>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and not
> by OFBiz.
>
> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF license
> policy?
>
> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
> violate the following [*]:
>
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>
> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>
> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
> people who spent time crafting its content.
>
> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the file
> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching a
> name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>

[Pierre Smits]

-1 regarding the use of the ASL2 license for readme files. Because it is
the wrong license for that kind of work.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Devs,
>>>
>>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>>> README files.
>>>
>>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>>
>>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>>
>>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
>>> define
>>> our policy.
>>>
>>> So please vote
>>>
>>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>>
>>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>>
>>> [0] Undecided
>>>
>>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
>> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
>> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
>> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and
>> not
>> by OFBiz.
>>
>> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
>> license
>> policy?
>>
>> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
>> violate the following [*]:
>>
>> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
>> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
>> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
>> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>>
>> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
>> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>>
>> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
>> people who spent time crafting its content.
>>
>> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
>> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the
>> file
>> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
>> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
>> a
>> name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
>> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
>> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Taher Alkhateeb <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree Jacopo. After a little bit of research I realized that we can add
> the header license without affecting the format by using html comment
> format <!-- comment -->
>
> Therefore I think it is wise to keep the license header in all of our files
>

yes Taher, we have a collection of license headers we can pick from here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/APACHE2_HEADER

:-)

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>
> Jacques


Jacques, are you saying that we are allowed, as a community, to decide to
not include the license header to files containing some degree of
creativity (despite to what is stated here [*])?

Jacopo

[*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

[taher]

Hi Jacopo, yeah it's good to have that file. I meant specifically for
"Markdown" because we had an issue of formatting. After a bit of research I
realized that HTML comments in Markdown will be ignored in most Markdown
readers including github's reader. In fact we should update that file to
include Markdown as a target for the HTML comments

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Taher Alkhateeb <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I agree Jacopo. After a little bit of research I realized that we can add
> > the header license without affecting the format by using html comment
> > format <!-- comment -->
> >
> > Therefore I think it is wise to keep the license header in all of our
> files
> >
>
> yes Taher, we have a collection of license headers we can pick from here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/APACHE2_HEADER
>
> :-)
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

What license would you propose? Remember we are an Apache project, which of course does not mean we must use the ASL2 license, but simplifies
potential users evaluation regarding the licensing aspect.

Jacques


Le 16/09/2016 à 10:43, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> -1 regarding the use of the ASL2 license for readme files. Because it is
> the wrong license for that kind of work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>>>> README files.
>>>>
>>>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>>>
>>>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>>>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
>>>> define
>>>> our policy.
>>>>
>>>> So please vote
>>>>
>>>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>>>
>>>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>>>
>>>> [0] Undecided
>>>>
>>>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
>>> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
>>> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
>>> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and
>>> not
>>> by OFBiz.
>>>
>>> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
>>> license
>>> policy?
>>>
>>> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
>>> violate the following [*]:
>>>
>>> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
>>> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
>>> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
>>> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>>>
>>> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
>>> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>>>
>>> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
>>> people who spent time crafting its content.
>>>
>>> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
>>> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the
>>> file
>>> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
>>> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
>>> a
>>> name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
>>> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
>>> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>
>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

+1


Le 16/09/2016 à 10:32, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> Also, if I recall, it was initially decided to not include a license header
> to the main README.md file in the root folder: however now that the file
> represents an important part of the OFBiz documentation, I think we should
> revisit that decision and add a license header to it.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>
>>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>>> README files.
>>>
>>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>>
>>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>>
>>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
>>> define our policy.
>>>
>>> So please vote
>>>
>>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>>
>>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>>
>>> [0] Undecided
>>>
>>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
>> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
>> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
>> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and not
>> by OFBiz.
>>
>> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
>> license policy?
>>
>> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
>> violate the following [*]:
>>
>> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements
>> or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
>> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
>> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>>
>> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
>> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>>
>> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
>> people who spent time crafting its content.
>>
>> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
>> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the file
>> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
>> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
>> a name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
>> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
>> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>> README files.
>>
>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>
>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>
>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to define
>> our policy.
>>
>> So please vote
>>
>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>
>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>
>> [0] Undecided
>>
>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and not
> by OFBiz.
>
> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF license
> policy?
>
> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
> violate the following [*]:
>
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>
> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>
> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
> people who spent time crafting its content.
>
> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the file
> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching a
> name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>

Thinking about it, I think I asked the wrong question because of my consistency obsession.

Actually if we are able to decide that the README. MD should have a license (which I agree with); I don't see why we should not be able to decide that
a file like the README in runtime/log does not need a license.

My point is we don't need to add useless lines in OFBiz, even for the sake of consistency.
On the other hand it's much easier to decide to add the ASL2 license everywhere because we can automate it with a S/R

But mmm, are we not somehow deciding something like if we have voted for adding "ASL2 header in README files"?

Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/09/2016 à 11:22, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>
>> Jacques
>
> Jacques, are you saying that we are allowed, as a community, to decide to
> not include the license header to files containing some degree of
> creativity (despite to what is stated here [*])?
>
> Jacopo
>
> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>

Not at all, I simply wonder what we will decide finally?

jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 16/09/2016 à 11:22, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>
>> Jacques, are you saying that we are allowed, as a community, to decide to
>> not include the license header to files containing some degree of
>> creativity (despite to what is stated here [*])?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>
>> Not at all, I simply wonder what we will decide finally?
>
> jacques
>

I am confused: what is the question you are asking? Do you think that this
vote should go on?

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/09/2016 à 12:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Le 16/09/2016 à 11:22, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>> Jacques, are you saying that we are allowed, as a community, to decide to
>>> not include the license header to files containing some degree of
>>> creativity (despite to what is stated here [*])?
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>
>>> Not at all, I simply wonder what we will decide finally?
>> jacques
>>
> I am confused: what is the question you are asking? Do you think that this
> vote should go on?
>
> Jacopo
>

I simply wonder how we, as a community, can decide on this subject if no vote can be done.

Jacques

[Pierre Smits]

Some love to discuss (and digress), Jacques.

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 16/09/2016 à 12:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Le 16/09/2016 à 11:22, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques, are you saying that we are allowed, as a community, to decide
>>>> to
>>>> not include the license header to files containing some degree of
>>>> creativity (despite to what is stated here [*])?
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>>
>>>> Not at all, I simply wonder what we will decide finally?
>>>>
>>> jacques
>>>
>>> I am confused: what is the question you are asking? Do you think that
>> this
>> vote should go on?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> I simply wonder how we, as a community, can decide on this subject if no
> vote can be done.
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I simply wonder how we, as a community, can decide on this subject if no
> vote can be done.
>
> Jacques
>

Jacques, please do not be elusive... I am simply asking you if this vote is
still valid or you have cancelled it.

Jacopo

[Michael Brohl-3]

Pierre,

it seems you are not sure about it, assuming from your question in
legal-discuss here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/cdc08a88d47709738c4aa7595a3dc2446e7aa5450d4b6ffc8cc56b52@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E 


Regards,
Michael

Am 16.09.16 um 10:43 schrieb Pierre Smits:

> -1 regarding the use of the ASL2 license for readme files. Because it is
> the wrong license for that kind of work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> So we can't decide as a community? Weird :-o
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 16/09/2016 à 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz
>>>> README files.
>>>>
>>>> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header
>>>>
>>>> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README files
>>>> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to
>>>> define
>>>> our policy.
>>>>
>>>> So please vote
>>>>
>>>> [+1] include a header in all README files
>>>>
>>>> [-1] do not include a header in any README files
>>>>
>>>> [0] Undecided
>>>>
>>>> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time !
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled.
>>> My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the
>>> ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF
>>> license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and
>>> not
>>> by OFBiz.
>>>
>>> Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF
>>> license
>>> policy?
>>>
>>> If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will
>>> violate the following [*]:
>>>
>>> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
>>> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
>>> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
>>> file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
>>>
>>> In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for
>>> example) does't contain "any degree of creativity":
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup
>>>
>>> In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by different
>>> people who spent time crafting its content.
>>>
>>> When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the document
>>> that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the
>>> file
>>> doesn't contain any degree of creativity.
>>> But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching
>>> a
>>> name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote.
>>> Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my
>>> *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license header.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>
>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I cancel this vote because it makes no sense to force to have an ASL2 headers in ALL readme files as I described them

Jacques


Le 16/09/2016 à 12:31, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I simply wonder how we, as a community, can decide on this subject if no
>> vote can be done.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
> Jacques, please do not be elusive... I am simply asking you if this vote is
> still valid or you have cancelled it.
>
> Jacopo
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/09/2016 à 12:31, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I simply wonder how we, as a community, can decide on this subject if no
>> vote can be done.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
> Jacques, please do not be elusive... I am simply asking you if this vote is
> still valid or you have cancelled it.
>
> Jacopo
>

OK, I cancelled the vote because "it makes no sense to force to have an ASL2 headers in ALL readme files", now what?

Jacques