OK we can also add the ASL2 headers to all our readme files, not a problem with
me
Jacques
Le 01/09/2016 à 12:34, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
...
Wait, I don't want a different license header in readme files (w/ or w/o
suffixes)
I just want things to be consistent. Which resumes to no header at all in
those files,
Consistency can be applied also by adding the standard license header to
the missing README files and this is what I suggest.
as I committed and as is recommended by the ASF
Removing the license header is not what the ASF recommends, if you refer to
the following:
"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.
Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
- Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
to.
- Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
tests to fail.
- 'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
larger file would have duplicate licensing headers.
PMCs should use their judgement, err on having a source header and contact
legal-discuss@ if unsure."
Jacopo
[*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
Do we really need a vote for that?
Jacques
Jacopo
Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I
want things to be consistent
Jacques
Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira
are
not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by
Jacques
in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the
files,
including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
Jacopo
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was
confirmed.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
<<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
are:
* Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files.
The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
relate
to.>>
That seems OK with me
Jacques
Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jler...@apache.org> wrote:
...
Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus
in
dev
mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The
mail
thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal
and I
wrote:
"In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
reason
for not doing so.
[...]
By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
document, to "err on having a source header and contact
legal-discuss@
if
unsure."
Jacopo
