Hi Eddie,Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but I recall you asking for it... ;-)
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
Craig--You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this before now.Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs to be updated to include the appropriate headers. Thoughts?
The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts that will update the license headers easier than manually editing all the files.
Craig
Eddie On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The license headers we are using are in conflict with current practice, as documented here: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is normative as of today. See the discussion in this message: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ 200612.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source headers, only a license notice. Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
