resending from the subscribed address (sorry for dup). Kristian Waagan wrote:
>> Hello, >> >> When reviewing a patch I became unsure if the source file header should >> include a copyright notice or not. I see that we have both in our repos. which files in the repo now have copyrights? 10.2 and forward should adhere to this policy: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html 10.1 and earlier adhere to the old policy, which included an Apache copyright line on each source file. --That's fine. If we were to do a new 10.1 release, which seems unlikely, then we would have to update everything to conform to the new header. >> According to some people I talked with, the copyright notice with dates >> (years) should not be included. But, looking at >> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new and >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply, it is clearly >> stated that a copyright notice should be included. >> >> Have we decided not to include the copyright notice? >> Can anyone clarify this for me? Current policy says to not include the copyright line per-file and to include the header on this page: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html The apply-license.html file hasn't been updated yet, but nags are being sent semi-regularly to legal-discuss [1]. If new copyrights (i.e., non-Apache) are being included in a patch, then let's be sure to discuss case-by-case. -jean [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
