On 1/5/12 1:42 PM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
At this point, I think that the Derby developers need to have a
conversation about why our source distributions have been carrying
these licensing terms since release 10.3.
Thanks Jean and Dag for finding that email thread. After reading it, I
have a couple comments/questions:
1) The discussion addresses why we believe that fo2html.xsl can be
copied and modified. However, it does not address Dan's question about
whether the file can be redistributed.
2) The discussion does not address the "(c) Copyright IBM Corp. 2004,
2005 All Rights Reserved." statement in sister files like dita2fo-links.xsl.
3) I don't find any explanation of why these files lack the Apache 2.0
header. I thought that the Apache header was required on all files
checked into the source repository (including build scripts). Are these
files covered by an exception to that rule?
Thanks,
-Rick
