On 6 February 2012 19:38, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:18, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >> On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >... >>> > Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?" >>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader >>> > is relevant here. >>> > >>> > The README file is generally not going to be modified - or seen in >>> > isolation - so it's not so necessary for the end user to know its >>> > license from the file itself. >>> > >>> > However, the template files are specifically designed for >>> > modification, and are likely to be seen without the LICENSE file, so >>> > IMO the enduser should see the AL header as part of the file. >>> >>> That would be my thinking, too. >> >> Not in this specific case, I think. > > You keep refining the description :-P > >> The original template files are not modified directly, neither are the >> output files. Modifications are by token replacement in the simplest form >> or by creating a completely new template to override the original (at which >> point the user can define their own licence). > > Personally, I call that a tool problem. Seems there ought to be some > kind of comment directive that won't get included into the output. Put > the ALv2 notice in that comment. > > And you're saying "supply a new template", but who knows what people > will do? Is there anything that prevents a downstream user from > editing these templates before packaging? Probably not. Sure... you'd > *like* them to provide a new template as part of Best Practices, but I > doubt that is forced. > >> If the user generates their widgets from these templates the files we are >> talking about will be included in larger files, which do contain license >> headers. Final outputs will therefore always have an Apache header, there >> may be user specified headers surrounding their own contributions. > > Gotcha. Yeah, that would be ugly, and it gets back to having some kind > of a "don't place <this> into the output" block. > >> The final outputs should never be edited, it's the widget definitions (the >> tokens referred to above) that get edited. > > Sure. > > Elsethread, I think Craig's suggestion is effectively saying "if the > file is shorter than the text, then we will declaratively state there > is no creativity in it." I'm not sure that is proper, but can > certainly see the argument.
There are probably quite a few Java interface definitions that are shorter than the AL header, but I think they should surely still have the header. > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
