On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> Oh, good--we're in agreement here. (Usually not good for one to argue
> too much with the President, non-profit or not ;)
You are safer off ignoring that silly hat of mine altogether most of the
time - and consider me just one of your peers (though perha
Oh, good--we're in agreement here. (Usually not good
for one to argue too much with the President,
non-profit or not ;)
Glen
--- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> > clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
> > project."
>
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
> project."
Well - at the very least it is more each and every 'granule' which the
committer community (i.e the developers) would consider its work or its
creation. So at the same time one has some leeway t
Also references on that Wiki page to "source code"
files and "files part of a project's codebase" [i.e.,
those that need the license] should be further
clarified to be "any file checked into CVS for a
project."
Glen
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow, mails like this make me fin
Wow, mails like this make me find new hope. Maybe I should resume my
crusade to improve licensing policies at Apache and clarify open
questions.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing updated with this
new piece of information (copyright years, which was an open question
there).
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza wrote:
> their to-do lists and related files--so if this is an
> oversight with us--so it is with everyone.
Which is no reason not to fix i in fop-dev ASAP. We're an open source
project; and the ASF needs every bit of help they can in making sure that
we dot our i
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
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?
>
-
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?
--
Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
