Yes, I agree with Karl's interpretation too.
-> richard
Karl Pauls wrote:
+1 But I thought seriously to send -1 because the LICENSE file contained
in all the releases is only a LICENSE template, in fact it contains the
sentence:"Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]", instead of
reporting our license information. Does anyone know of how to fill the
license file?
Well, this is not needed as far as I know. The goal of the ASL 2.0 is
explicitly to allow the inclusion without modification of the LICENSE
file. The [yyy] template is only in the appendix to show how to apply
the License to your work. In other words it is _not_ a template but
the real deal. Have a look at:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
and
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
regards,
Karl
Ciao,
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Karl Pauls wrote:
I would like to call a vote on the framework and main 1.0.3
as well as on the bundlerepository 1.0.2 release.
The source release archives, signature files, SHA and MD5
message digests for each are available as zip and tar.gz here:
http://people.apache.org/~pauls/felix-1.0.3.html
Additionally, a binary release is included on the page as a
convenience download as well as the framework, main, and
bundlerepository binaries and poms in
order to make them available via maven.
Please vote to approve these release archives:
[ ] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.3 framework and main releases
as well as the bundlerepository 1.0.2 release.
[ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
