On 6 February 2012 15:26, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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."
For this use case we need not worry about that. If the user regenerates their template definitions none of these template files will be included. If the user redistributes the widgets generated from their widget definitions the generated files will have an Apache licence applied to them from the master files. If the user wants to apply a different licence to their code they can do so by adding it to their own template replacement files. We should: a) document this in templates/readme.txt b) ensure the main container files (e.g. index.html, scripts/controller.js, style/screen/css) have the appropriate header Ross
