On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 11/03/12 12:20, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >> On 11/02/12 00:44, Chip Childers wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/29/12 13:46, Chip Childers wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Please do let me know if I can be of any assistance! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The descriptor[1] has a lot of<copyright-notice> elements for licenses >>>> where they aren't necessary[2]. Did the documentations or the element >>>> naming >>>> (say) give the impression that this information is necessary - or >>>> were they >>>> included because that the way you want the LICENSE to be ...? >> >> >> <snip> >> >>> Perhaps I hit a bug then, because I found that without a copyright >>> tag, with-license elements were being skipped. >> >> >> I'll create some tests to investigate > > > With the latest code-base, the only difference after removing > copyright-notice elements from with-license elements is that the copyright > claims are gone. Could you check if the problem is fixed in the current code > base...? > > Cheers > > Robert >
I'm not able to reproduce this, so it may very well have been user error. Thanks Robert.
