On 1/9/02 8:38 PM, "Ceki G�lc�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Geir, > > I think the rule is so obvious once stated that no one is likely to disagree > with it. In a perfect world, we would vote on such a rule in order to adopt it > formally. However, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources > and the Jakarta tradition of lazy approval seems to apply. Regards, Ceki This ties back to the thread earlier this week regarding the community not conforming to the rules we have. In this case, while indeed a sensible and required thing, it was a two message exchange on general@ that formed it into a rule. Then, it was going to be added to a page that many will probably not see. So what we've done is set things up for people to violate the 'rule' simply out of ignorance. Again, don't get me wrong - I agree 100% with the rule :) > > At 20:24 09.01.2002 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> On 1/9/02 12:53 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ted Husted wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright >>>>> notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file. >>>>> This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should >>>>> happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from >>>>> 1999, you should change the copyright notice in the license to read >>>>> 1999, 2002. If the file was from 2001, we would change it to 2001-2002. >>>> >>>> I have never bothered to learn the details (there are some topics I avoid >>>> lest I become perceived as an expert on the subject ;-)), but when working >>>> on software for my employer (who has a tendency of being careful about such >>>> things), we tend to follow the roughly the rules specified above. >>> >>> Hey Ted, can you update source.xml (or whatever appropriate jakarta-site2 >>> file) in order to get that little rule 'documented'? >>> >> >> Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a >> file? >> >> I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am just >> asking what makes it a rule now.... >> >> >> On the issue itself, isn't this something that should be uniformly done >> across all Apache projects? >> >> I would think that since it's part of the License, we want uniformity. >> >> -- >> Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> System and Software Consulting >> You're going to end up getting pissed at your software >> anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. >> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > Ceki G�lc� - http://qos.ch > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
