On 17/02/2010, at 4:24 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > Scott Gray wrote: >> On 17/02/2010, at 4:09 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> Adam, >>>> >>>> Maybe you didn't notice, but this was a single commit from over a year ago. >>> What does the timeframe of the commit have to do with my question? >>> There was a license header, now there isn't, and I checked trunk first >>> before sending my question, to see if it had been added in the mean time. >>> >> >> My guess is that the file was modified automatically by Eclipse (hence the >> license removal) during David's development work and was committed when he >> committed that work, accidentally or otherwise. >> >> If it bothers you then add it back, I don't think we've really got anything >> in that file in terms of new work and the header isn't entirely necessary >> IMO. > > Apache requires it. >
No it doesn't.
{quote|source=http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html}
What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?
A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its
structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does not
require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the file's
creativity, add the license header to the file.
{quote}
Regards
Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
