Hi Claus,
CXF‘ generated file doesn't have the ASF licenes header, I think it
because velocity doesn't count on the commented ASF licenes header of
the template[1].
I think current Camel archetypes doesn't filter the resources file's ASF
licenes header comments, so we can still see the ASF licenes header in
the generated file.
[1]https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/tools/javato/ws/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/tools/java2wsdl/processor/internal/simple/generator/template/client.vm
Willem
Claus Ibsen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
When files are generated using the Camel archetypes, the code contains the
usual license note we have in the Camel files:
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
I am not sure if the *generated* files should contain the statement that the
code:
* is "Licensed to the [...] ASF"
* "under one or more" CLAs (people who ran the maven archetype most likely
don't have a CLA on file
* "The ASF licenses this file to You"
Obviously the user would be responsible for his code, so he'd have to
replace all the license comments with her own. Are we doing her any
service? Should we put some generic TODO comment?
I wonder what CXF does with its wsdl2java tool? Does it put in a
license header on the .java files?
Am I too pedantic?
Could be, nobody else have reported it before :)
But great that you spotted it and started a discussion.
Hadrian
