Turns out that trying to hack the script to *not* remove the copyright
statement, and then at a future run build a new script that *only*
removes the copyright statement, is more work than I'm willing to do.
Also, it means doing two passes through the entire source tree (I was
going to do it one directory at a time), with lots of very careful
checking and double-checking to make sure it was all done right. I'd
rather only go through that once...
Do I understand correctly that code contributed under CLA after the
original IBM contribution must also require gaining permission from the
original contributors? Does this basically mean that we need to get
permission from every person who has ever contributed code to Derby
before I can run this script? I guess this is what you're trying to
find out, Dan, right?
Thanks,
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
David Van Couvering wrote:
I think I can get started by doing the following:
- Adding the license text to the source files where they are missing
- Changing the license verbiage to meet the new requirements but *not*
removing the copyright notice.
In a second phase, if when this final issue gets clarified, I can do
another pass removing the copyright notice from the source files. Dan
is already moving the IBM copyright from COPYRIGHTS to NOTICE.
Sound good?
+1
Dan.
