> IANAL. > > I would like as short a message as possible. I would also > like a lawyer to decide which message is satisfactory (are > you a lawyer). If there is no decisive assessment as to what > is safe, I would like to be on the good side of safe. > > I do *not* think that this discussion should take place on > avalon-dev. I object to voting on the subject where it is > apparantly unclear what choices have been given to us by the > PMC, if we indeed have a choice. > > This is not something for a subproject to decide. Any change > from current standard jakarta practice (and I think the short > version is > common) should be discussed in the appropriate forum.
My point is this: 1) Peter just doesn't want a long header. I don't blame him, but the license is not *that* long. 2) The short form of the license *does not* address the viewing of that java source outside of a distribution. We have a way of looking at the source code here in Apache land without seeing the LICENSE.txt file. Resolution: A) Use the long header anyway. B) Use the modified short form that points the reader to the license even if the file is separated from the distribution. It's a touchy subject, I realize. The fact is most Apache source code has the long form. We are one of the last remaining holdouts. I honestly think the short form as written does not cover our butts sufficiently. The modified short form does a better job (it provides the same information, but in a better way). If people are dead set against the long form, then the modified short form would be a comfortable compromize. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
