The problem is rather that there are still people who think that the short licence is ok. What I long for is a definitive statement (or a reference to it) from an Apache member with his Apache hat on about this topic. I have followed a lot of discussions but never found such a statement. Maybe I just missed it. If anyone has one I'd be glad to send a patch.
On 17.02.2003 15:47:15 Aaron Bannert wrote: > Send a patch! :) > -aaron > > > On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 06:40 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > I wonder when this is finally going to be hammered into stone somewhere > > on the Apache website. Sorry, couldn't resist. > > > > On 17.02.2003 15:29:41 Aaron Bannert wrote: > >> > >> On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 07:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> Index: BCELProxyGeneratorTestCase.java > >>> =================================================================== > >>> /* > >>> * Copyright (C) The Apache Software Foundation. All rights > >>> reserved. > >>> * > >>> * This software is published under the terms of the Apache > >>> Software > >>> License > >>> * version 1.1, a copy of which has been included with this > >>> distribution in > >>> * the LICENSE.txt file. > >>> */ > >> > >> Last I heard, we don't allow inclusion of the license by reference, > >> which means someone will have to go into each one of these files and > >> put the full license... Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
