if I remember the discussion correctly, it was that since the author(supposedly) was in the svn history, it was not necessary to have the author in the header. I don't remember it being against the ASF policy. >From the few licenses I reviewed through the svn explorer they are more verbose and varied than the one in ofbiz. Httpd ver 2.2 see LICENSE 613311
Adam Heath sent the following on 8/9/2008 9:23 PM: > 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. > > >
