[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project jakarta-site2 (in module jakarta-site2) failed

2006-06-01 Thread Stefan Bodewig
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project jakarta-site2 has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project jakarta-site2 (in module jakarta-site2) failed

2006-06-01 Thread Stefan Bodewig
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project jakarta-site2 has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread sebb
On 31/05/06, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/05/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 31 May 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 31 May 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: On 5/31/06, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I updated the stylesheet to change the Copyright

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread Henri Yandell
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, sebb wrote: At present, all the pages contain the footer: Copyright (c) 1999-2005, The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_ where _Legal information_ is a link to the legal page (which definitely needs updating to 2006!) IIUC, the new footer would just be:

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread Martin Cooper
On 6/1/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, sebb wrote: At present, all the pages contain the footer: Copyright (c) 1999-2005, The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_ where _Legal information_ is a link to the legal page (which definitely needs

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread Henri Yandell
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: I think it would be worth asking whether or not a copyright notice without specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all. I guess the first

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread Roland Weber
Martin Cooper wrote: I think it would be worth asking whether or not a copyright notice without specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all. My expectation is that copyright protection

Re: [site] Copyright dates

2006-06-01 Thread sebb
On 01/06/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: I think it would be worth asking whether or not a copyright notice without specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection