Re: Forking Inputstream: Am I missing something
dennis wrote:
I found your response a bit strange. This were all answers to questions y=
ou yourself asked ?
I cannot parse that question, if question it is. What are you asking?
My response was "strange" only insofar as it corrected misinformation
from your post.
Lew wrote:
They don't have to appear in the application interface,
splash screen or anywhere else but in the copyright notices.
dennis wrote:
This is what 4.4 of the Apache license says: "within the Source form or d=
ocumentation,
if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generat=
ed by the
Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appea=
r." How would
you interpret this, knowing most of my customers will not release the sou=
rce code?
I "interpret this" as saying exactly what it says, "... if and
wherever such third-party notices normally appear." If your splash
screen doesn't display copyright information, Apache license doesn't
require to put all the upstream copyright notices.
This is not different from what I said, "They don't have to appear ...
anywhere else but in the copyright notices." I don't know why anyone
objects to displaying copyright notices from the copyright holder(s);
that's what copyright is for. There's a word for using copyrighted
material without acknowledging the copyright: plagiarism.
Lew wrote:
The BSD license is similar in this respect - "Redistributions of source =
code
must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
the following disclaimer." Tomayto, tomahto.
dennis wrote:
It is not that similar, because the modified BSD only refers to source co=
de.
The Apache license extends this towards generated code as well.
No, it extends it to generated copyright notices. Nowhere does it
discuss placing copyright notices in generated code. You are
spreading misinformation about the Apache license.
Lew wrote:
There is absolutely no requirement in the Apache license to submit
work back to the copyright holder, much less Apache. Wherever did you
get that notion?
dennis wrote:
I don't have the notion that this is required.
That contradicts what you said. You said,
They [your customers] cannot derive works of it, without complying to the=
notice
part of the license, or supplying it back to Apache.
Something they might not be willing to do.
Naturally I wondered why you thought the Apache license required that
"they ... supply... it back to Apache."
Lew wrote:
Why are you even open-sourcing your software given your concerns?
dennis wrote:
I don't have any concerns. I answered your question on why I use one lice=
nse instead of another.
So despite what you said, you are not concerned that your customers
have to display the copyright notices of copyright holders?
It's hard to discuss a subject with someone who shifts their ground on
every point when a counterpoint or question is raised.
I see no purpose in discussing this with you further.
--
Lew