I agree Jacopo. After a little bit of research I realized that we can add the header license without affecting the format by using html comment format <!-- comment -->
Therefore I think it is wise to keep the license header in all of our files On Sep 16, 2016 11:32 AM, "Jacopo Cappellato" < jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Also, if I recall, it was initially decided to not include a license header > to the main README.md file in the root folder: however now that the file > represents an important part of the OFBiz documentation, I think we should > revisit that decision and add a license header to it. > > Jacopo > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Devs, > >> > >> There are mixed opinions about putting or not the ASL2 header in OFBiz > >> README files. > >> > >> One one hand we can read at http://www.apache.org/legal/sr > >> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions that README files don't require a header > >> > >> But to protect our work we can decide to put a header in all README > files > >> (with or w/o suffixes). It's all or none to be consistent. > >> > >> Since License is an important matter I think a vote is necessary to > >> define our policy. > >> > >> So please vote > >> > >> [+1] include a header in all README files > >> > >> [-1] do not include a header in any README files > >> > >> [0] Undecided > >> > >> I will close this vote in a week, thanks for your time ! > >> > >> Jacques > >> > >> > > In my opinion this vote is not valid and should be cancelled. > > My reasoning is the following: the result of this vote may be against the > > ASF license policy and as a project we are not allowed to change the ASF > > license policy by vote. In fact our codebase is licensed by the ASF and > not > > by OFBiz. > > > > Why am I saying that the result of this vote may be against the ASF > > license policy? > > > > If we decide to "not include a header in any README files" then we will > > violate the following [*]: > > > > "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements > > or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a > file > > does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the > > file's creativity, add the license header to the file." > > > > In fact it would be difficult to state that the following file (for > > example) does't contain "any degree of creativity": > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/README.md?view=markup > > > > In fact it contains useful documentation that was contributed by > different > > people who spent time crafting its content. > > > > When in doubt, we should add the license header (as stated in the > document > > that Jacques and I referenced); or we can omit it if we judge that the > file > > doesn't contain any degree of creativity. > > But definitely we can't blindly decide by vote for all the files matching > > a name (i.e. README) as proposed by Jacques in this vote. > > Since deciding on a case by case may be tricky and even subjective, my > > *personal* preference would be to add to all the files the license > header. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Jacopo > > > > [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > > > > > > > > > >
