Hi, Am Dienstag, den 14.08.2018, 11:21 +0900 schrieb Junichi Yamamoto: > If an existing template file has the license header, how should we > handle it? (see [1]) > Just change it? or Remove it from the template, then exclude from > rat? > > AFAIR, almost all template files don't have the license header > because it is "user visible". > I removed it in [1] because I thought that we should unify that.
my take on this: The license header of the template should not get into the users code, so if the template does not allow template only comments, then there should be no license header and the file needs to be excluded from rat (licenseinfo.xml can then be used to declare the required meta-data) If it is a freemarker template, however, there are template only comments. The only "problem" that was raised in the past was, that people might be frightened by the license header, when they change the template. I think the fact, that the PHP modules have templates, that had a GPL/CDDL header prove the opposite. The GPL language is much more aggressive in its requirements, and I never saw this raised as a problem. I would argue, that adding the ALv2 header to all templates, that support template only comments is the "right" thing to do. The files are part of Apache Netbeans and there is not much difference between a template file and a java file, that produces code. Both are ALv2 licensed. Nothing changes, just because the user does not see it anymore. The files stay ALv2 licensed and so a user redistributing them without following the requirements of the ALv2 still violate the license terms. Greetings Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
