Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at; http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a potential open issue.I'm -1 due to the copyright notice changes. A bunch of files magically added years to copyright notices (i.e. from -2004 to -2006) when those files didn't actually substantively change during that period. That's a no-no.
How is this a showstopper? As has been pointed out, your comments are late to the table, and this certainly isn't a change in existing practice, and most certainly doesn't invalidate the (initial and appropriate) copyrights. -1 to adopting Jackrabbits' license until Roy's (very reasonable) nit on the language is addressed. -1 to removing copyright until we have an absolute, documented policy from ASF legal. I'm glad you and Roy feel entirely assured that you speak for legal/privy to its workings and, of course, its final conclusions. For the sanity of all the rest of us project members, let us please work from documented policy though, can we? And feh - let's just have done with this tarball release and revisit once policy is *set*. I don't concur with Colm, the tarball is the release and changing the legal text is more significant, perhaps, than even the code itself. So it's yet another bump that strikes me as silly. Bill
