Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<total snip>
So I seem to have provoked much more discussion than I intended here.
don't worry - seems to happen a lot here :-)
sorry, but discussion is good as long as we have objective and produce
something as part of the discussion.
[...]
I've lost track of the ensuing discussion. Points (1) and (2) are my
interpretation of what I thought was consensus reached on the legal-discuss
list around dec-2007-jan-2008 leading up to release of the latest maven
remote resource bundle for apache. Getting it documented clearly would have
been a good idea at the time but I was tired.
documentation is tough: i would describe this stuff as strongly
recommended best practice rather than mandatory policy ATM
Make sense. You're on Legal Affairs, you should really say this as a
comment there:
LEGAL-26 LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26
LEGAL-27 LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27
or comment the JIRA notifications on legal-discuss
:-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
