This may need more work before proceeding---I've looked at Xalan, Cocoon, Axis--none of them are licensing their shell scripts and batch files--nor their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an oversight with us--so it is with everyone.
Two (Xalan and Axis) do have a copyright statement on their Ant build.xml; however, that's not the Apache license but a standard copyright notice that would appear to prevent users from modifying them--I don't think this is what is wanted either. We probably need Apache-wide direction on this, and FOP should follow what is done by the more established projects such as Xalan, Struts, etc. If FOP is to actually move our, say, 3 and 5 line shell scripts to 54 and 56 lines, respectively, *all* the projects should be doing this--not just those who ask about it. Another issue--perhaps the Apache license will need to be reformatted into official versions that will work with DOS batch scripts, Unix Shell scripts, to-do list text files and XML documents, because the current license appears designed for Java/C++ source only. (OTOH, such versions may already exist--I don't know.) Glen --- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please Add ! And thanks for noticing this. > > Dw > > On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Peter B. West wrote: > > > I have just noticed that there is no licence in > build.xml, build.bat or > > build.sh. I assume this is an oversight, or do we > have a dispensation? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
