On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
mfrank...@mitre.org wrote:
I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this page),
but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like you need the header, if you assume
your templates
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
mfrank...@mitre.org wrote:
I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at this
page), but the release FAQ [1]
Hi,
[legal-discuss@?]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Would it be acceptable for these files to *not* have licence headers in them?
Going further, you may want to explicitly declare that downstream
users have the right to distribute their widgets
On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Doumaa...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
mfrank...@mitre.orgwrote:
I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me
On 02/06/2012 03:40 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[legal-discuss@?]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Would it be acceptable for these files to *not* have licence headers in them?
Going further, you may want to explicitly declare that downstream
Perfect - thanks Ate
On 6 February 2012 14:54, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Doumaa...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
only applies to files with no creative content.
AFAICT this is not the case here.
On 6 February 2012 15:03, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Perfect - thanks Ate
On 6 February 2012 14:54, Ate Douma
On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
only applies to files with no creative content.
AFAICT this is not the case here.
Can you tell me why you think this is the case?
As a reminder, in my original
On 6 February 2012 15:29, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
only applies to files with no creative content.
AFAICT this is not the case here.
Can you
On 6 February 2012 16:07, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:29, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:20, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As I read it, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
only applies to files with no
On 6 February 2012 16:30, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Doumaa...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6,
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
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?
I added comments to the JIRA:
Reading the examples provided gives me the idea that there is little
creativity. Most of the content is required by the xml formatting
rules. Look at the files after removing the xml: result collapsible ID
TITLE detail.
That said, the rule is absolute. I'd
Excellent clarification, and certainly removes doubt (for me) in this case.
Thanks.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 6:31 PM, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
I added comments to the JIRA:
Reading the examples provided gives me the
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
On 02/06/2012 07:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Perhaps the answer to Why is a licensing header necessary?
Yes, Ate is right. There is likely to gee a situation in the future when
some of these files might contain creative content. I think Craig's
clarification covers this and there will, in the future, need to enhance
the code to strip licences.
My question here is about the way forward for a release
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
