On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 11.06.2008, 10:10 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Note also that the current notice files include several things that,
according to Roy in his revision 662927 changes, do not require
notices. Better having too much than too little I guess, but there's
probably some extra noise in there.
Yes, I know - for now I really would like to have more in there
than is
legally required. We removed a lot of stuff just to find out later on
that something is missing (which partially has been there the
first time)
My stance is to give credit where credit is due and that we should not
differentiate between those _requiring_ credit (placing these in
NOTICE)
and those _not_ requiring (placing these in README). Therefore, I
am all
for placing all included third-party (be it ASF or non-ASF) code in
the
respective NOTICE file.
To help showing the NOTICE files I am also going to add a page in the
Web Console which allows easy display of the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Hey, I'm all for people having opinions on development and credits and
documentation. NOTICE and LICENSE are none of those. They are not open
to anyone's opinions other than the copyright owners that require such
notices, and they must not be added where they are not required. Each
additional notice places a burden on the ASF and all downstream
redistributors.
Please, folks, I am not even a Sling committer. I am speaking as the
author of the Apache License. Don't screw with what I have changed.
I have way more experience in these matters than everyone else at the
ASF combined. If you put stuff in NOTICE that is not legally required
to be there, I will remove it as an officer of the ASF. If you add it
back in, I will have to duplicate the effort of removing it again.
That will not make me a happy camper.
....Roy
