Steve Loughran wrote:
Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ?
I have yet to probe. I know the lawyers were very, very, very unhappy
at the original draft as its patent scope was too broad:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=49
Hi Steve,
You are referring
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree
with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the
old license.
-steve
Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ?
I have yet to probe. I know the lawyers were very, very,
Steve Loughran wrote:
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree
with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the
old license.
-steve
Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ?
I have yet to probe. I know the law
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
Steve Loughran wrote:
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree
with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the
old license.
-steve
Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ?
I have
I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree
with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the
old license.
-steve
Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ?
I rather get this type of chores done sooner rather than later.
Antoine
--
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi,
from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting:
* The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that
license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> PLus we include the full text in a file in the distribution.
And retain the years in the copyright notice.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:17 pm, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
> so do we want to see this :
>
> /*
> *Copyright 2004 Apache Software Foundation
> *Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
> * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
> * You may obta
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
what about starting the switch with ant 1.6.1 ?
I wouldn't have any problem with this.
Do we need to change the license comment in all the source files ?
Yes, sooner or later. Not sure whethe
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> what about starting the switch with ant 1.6.1 ?
I wouldn't have any problem with this.
> Do we need to change the license comment in all the source files ?
Yes, sooner or later. Not sure whether it has to be done before we
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi,
from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting:
* The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that
license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to
the new
Hi,
from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting:
> * The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that
>license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
>
>The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to
>the
12 matches
Mail list logo
