On 02/06/2012 04:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 6 February 2012 11:16, Ate Douma<[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/06/2012 10:51 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sorry no time right now.
Same here. But I do intent to follow up later today with more feedback, not
just on this.
I have been thinking about this and it really makes no sense to have
license headers in there for the reason Scott gives, plus there is no
IP value in those files.
That is the primary question.
If there is no IP value, there is no need, nor requirement, to have a
license header on top.
...
For the time being, if (all) the current templates indeed do not have IP
value, I wouldn't worry about them and just add them to the RAT exclusions
configuration.
Ate (via general@) list said:
"Seems to me this has been asked and answered before:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions";
Which is the clearest answer we can hope for. It fully supports Ate's
recommendation here.
Sebb (via general@ / LEGAL-124) really provided the best answer:
"The paragraph here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader explains why (almost)
all files should have AL headers."
Ate
Ross
