At 13:32 21.10.2002 -0500, Michael A. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Ceki G�lc� wrote:
> At 10:56 21.10.2002 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >I found a few things not yet mentioned:
> >
> >
> >3) There are many, many cases where an abbreviated form of the Apache
> >license is used. I don't recall whether this is permitted or not, but I know
> >at the very least it's "not recommended".
>
> Your statement is generally accepted to be correct. However, it will create
> unnecessary work when the ASF switches to the next version of the license
> which is significantly longer than the current one. It will be impractical
> to copy it verbatim in each source file. For this reason, most projects
> will have to revert to using the short form. As far as I know, the short
> form is perfectly legal. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This question has been asked and answered numerous times.

The short form is not allowed. Period.
Any ASF document you could point me to? Ellipsis...


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Reply via email to