License info - Githubissues

FasterXML / java-classmate

Library for introspecting generic type information of types, member/static methods, fields. Especially useful for POJO/Bean introspection.

http://fasterxml.com

Apache License 2.0

258 stars 42 forks source link

License info #6

Closed jason-s closed 13 years ago

jason-s commented 13 years ago

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).

cowtowncoder commented 13 years ago

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 +-

jason-s commented 13 years ago

great, thank you!

cowtowncoder commented 13 years ago

Np.

jason-s commented 13 years ago

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>)

cowtowncoder commented 13 years ago

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.

jason-s commented 13 years ago

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.

cowtowncoder commented 13 years ago

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...