I notice you found some files with no license headers at all.
I had actually known those files existed, but I didn't know if the
format supported comments. They were services files, and I
investigated and found that our services parser actually does support
comments. However, the parser in javax.persistence.Persistence (that
parses the META-INF/javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider file)
surprisingly doesn't support comments, so I had to leave the license
out of that file.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Good exercise anyway. I notice you found some files with no license
headers at all.
Good job.
Craig
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
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]
%3e
>>>
>>> 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!
>
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!
