On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> wrote: > I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the > website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last > year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the > existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his > 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version. >> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is > That line was in there originally because I thought there was an > attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only > applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely > not doing that, so we can move that part entirely. Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK. Kalle
