Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :) Eddie
On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to get this taken care of quickly. On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but > I recall you asking for it... ;-) > > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote: > >> Craig-- >> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this >> before now. >> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs >> to be >> updated to include the appropriate headers. >> >> Thoughts? > > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing > all the files. > > Craig >> >> Eddie >> >> >> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current >>> practice, as documented here: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message: >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ >>> 200612.mbox/% >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source >>> headers, only a license notice. >>> >>> Craig Russell >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ >>> products/jdo >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>> >>> >>> > > Craig Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >
