[deepamehta-devel] License Files

Di Jun 24 21:13:47 CEST 2008

Hi,

to be more precise, here some excerpts from the Apache homepage:

  "Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In this scenario,
  a negative vote constitutes a veto, which cannot be overridden. [...]
  Under normal (non-lazy consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three
  positive votes and no negative ones in order to pass; if it fails to
  garner the requisite amount of support, it doesn't -- and typically is
  either withdrawn, modified, or simply allowed to languish as an open
  issue until someone gets around to removing it."

  "A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a
  -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot
  be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless
  withdrawn by their casters.
  To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be
  accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad
  (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc.). A
  veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."

See the full text: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Regards,
Urs

Am Dienstag, den 24.06.2008, 17:20 +0200 schrieb Jörg Richter:
> thank you, Urs, for explaining the apache process!
> I feel better now.
> 
> So, I like to add a 4th proposition D) and give my opinion here:
> 
> A)	COPYING
> 	COPYING-de
> 
> B)	LICENSE
> 	LICENSE-de
> 
> C)	LICENSE.txt
> 	LICENSE-de.txt
> 
> D)	COPYING.txt
> 	COPYING-de.txt
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> A) -
> B) -
> C) +
> D) 0
> 
> How is the decision made according to the apache process?
> Proposition C) seems to be the only one with no negative (-) votings so 
> far.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> On 24.06.2008, at 14:15, Urs Lerch wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > to explain a little bit the "Apache way": if only one finds a
> > proposition negative (-), then normally he can't be simply overruled by
> > the masses. In this case there is always a need for further discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Urs
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 24.06.2008, 14:05 +0200 schrieb Jörg Richter:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> i choose option D ;-)
> >>
> >> 	COPYING.txt
> >> 	COPYING-de.txt
> >>
> >> Mac OS X can't always guess the proper application to open the file
> >> when double clicked. In this situation an alert box is raised which
> >> leads to a very bad user experience (see screenshot). That's why all
> >> files in the SVN repository have an extension. It's for the user's
> >> sake!
> >>
> >>
> >> Still I feel LICENSE the better name over COPYING because it tells
> >> better what this file actually is.
> >>
> >> Democratic decisions is not always a good way. When ist comes to
> >> Software, Mac users would always outvoted.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jörg
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24.06.2008, at 12:28, Urs Lerch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Jörg proposed to give the licence files modest different names. A 
> >>> quick
> >>> research of well known projects shows the following results:
> >>>
> >>>   project            name of the licence file
> >>>   ----------------- ------------------------
> >>>   Java (OpenJDK)    LICENSE
> >>>   Linux Kernel      COPYING
> >>>   GCC               COPYING
> >>>   emacs             COPYING
> >>>   KDE               COPYING
> >>>   Gnome             COPYING
> >>>   Gimp              COPYING
> >>>   MySql	            COPYING
> >>>   Apache            LICENCE
> >>>   OpenOffice        in Sourcefiles
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion it is best to do it the way the other do. So my 
> >>> prefered
> >>> proposition for the naming of the licence files is:
> >>>
> >>>   A) COPYING
> >>>      COPYING-de
> >>>
> >>> Alternate, in respect to Java, I propose:
> >>>
> >>>   B) LICENSE
> >>>      LICENSE-de
> >>>
> >>> And, finally, to respect Jörgs wishes, here's my third proposition:
> >>>
> >>>   C) LICENSE.txt
> >>>      LICENSE-de.txt
> >>>
> >>> I propose to do it the Apache way: For each possibility every one can
> >>> tell if he's positive (+), negative (-) or indifferent (0). And at 
> >>> the
> >>> end we take the one with the most agreement.
> >>>
> >>> So my opinion is:
> >>>
> >>>   A) +
> >>>   B) 0
> >>>   C) 0
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Urs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am Sonntag, den 22.06.2008, 21:10 +0200 schrieb Jörg Richter:
> >>>> Hi Urs,
> >>>>
> >>>> thank you for adding the license files!
> >>>> Your SVN operation looks OK.
> >>>> Just one note:
> >>>>
> >>>> Pperhaps it is a good idea to rename the files:
> >>>> 	licence -> LICENSE.txt
> >>>> 	lizenz -> LICENSE-de.txt
> >>>> This way the naming would match the README files.
> >>>> Please note: I prefere "License" -- with an s --, the american 
> >>>> english
> >>>> form. All DeepaMehta texts are written in american english, like the
> >>>> GPL3 itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Furthermore you are now an administrator for the Berlios bug 
> >>>> tracking
> >>>> and feature request tools. This means you can make changes to bug
> >>>> reports and feature requests. Now you are able to close your feature
> >>>> request #004180 by yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your first check-in!
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Jörg
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> deepamehta-devel mailing list
> >> deepamehta-devel at lists.berlios.de
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/deepamehta-devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > deepamehta-devel mailing list
> > deepamehta-devel at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/deepamehta-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> deepamehta-devel mailing list
> deepamehta-devel at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/deepamehta-devel