[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1752?page=all ]
Andrew McIntyre updated DERBY-1752:
-----------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 10.2.3.0
(was: 10.2.2.0)
I am in agreement with Dan that the copyright notice as would appear in the
NOTICE file is sufficient for the front page of the generated documentation.
While my original query for clarification did not receive a reply, this
question came up in a later thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200611.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Because the source in this case are the file in the java tree, I believe that
the source header is not required in the javadoc, nor in the generated
documentation. It would be nice if http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
clarified this, but despite lack of clarification, I do think we are ok for
10.2.2 based on the above email thread.
I will leave this open and produce a patch to fix the incorrect copyright
statement and replace it with the NOTICE-style copyright in trunk and 10.2.3.x
> Fix javadoc to account for changes required by new licence header policy.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1752
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1752
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Assigned To: Andrew McIntyre
> Fix For: 10.3.0.0, 10.2.3.0
>
> Attachments: derby-1752-v1.diff
>
>
> The published javadoc creates a copyright with the old copyright statement,
> should be replaced with the collected works copyright,.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
