They did. We had that discussion already, and we definitely don't need the license headers in script files that are interpreted at runtime.
On 8/6/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/7/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes we ship both in the validator jar - perhaps should follow up with > > Wicket to see if they found an accomodation. I can't believe that the > > ASF can't come up with a one line solution for javascript files - > > something along the lines "This is licensed under the AL 2.0 - go see > > foo file/url for full license/copyright details" - i.e. "detached > > license" - similar to signatures. > > +1 That would make me very happy, especially if we could use it for > more than just Javascript files. Perhaps the license in every file is > a necessary evil (of which I remain unconvinced), but I don't see why > it has to be more than a simple sentence. > > Don > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
