--- Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the license headers were previously unclear (per > your comments > below, I'm not aware of the specifics of this case), > then having the > copyright owner(s) resubmit in line with current ASF > header policy (if > they're so inclined) is a good thing IMO. Unless its > to be treated as > third party works, which still needs compatible > licensing. > > > > The other question is who exactly is the > > copyright owner? The headers say the > NanoContainer Organization, but is > > that really a legal entity? > > > <snap/>
Nanoocntainer organisation is definitely not a legal entity. At least I'm not aware of it. > The original author(s) should know (could be any > combination of these > authors, employers and affiliations at the time of > producing the > works, based on agreements in place at the time). I'm one of the original authors, and this code used to be in nanocontainer project, then it was moved to WW. I will raise this on nanocontainer mailing list, so all the authors can decide what is best way to do this. I personally would prefer that nanocontainer being deep infrastructure is unaware of tools living more on the surface. regards regards, ----[ Konstantin Pribluda http://www.pribluda.de ]---------------- Still using XDoclet 1.x? XDoclet 2 is released and of production quality. check it out: http://xdoclet.codehaus.org ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
