Before doing any changes to the format of the license file, we should carefully review the ASF guidelines, so that the license file (as it should be now now) will follow the same format used by the other ASF projects (and ASF recommendations). I don't think the Authors section make a big sense for most (if not all) the Open Source projects we are using.

Jacopo

On Aug 10, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

In the LICENSE file at the top of the ofbiz tree, there is a segment of files that are under a BSD license. However, what follows is *NOT* the actual license they are under, but a generic BSD- template. This means we are not actually including the license each of those files is under.

Additionally, many files do *NOT* list the location where they were fetched from; ie, no upstream location. There is also no mention of the author(which is somewhat related).

My suggestion in fixing this, is to use a format that is a bit more easy for automated programs to parse; the current LICENSE file is rather free-form. Something along these lines:

Name: foobar
Homepage: http://www.foobar.com/
Version: 1.2-3rc1
Authors:
Some Body <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: short description
long description
Files:
framework/base/lib/foobar.jar
framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/foo.js
framework/images/webapp/images/foobar/bar.js
Common-License: APL 2.0
or
Common-License:
<license text>

You will note that this format is compatible with debian control files. However, I'm not married to it; any parseable file will do.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to