I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
get this taken care of quickly.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
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 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!
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!
