Comments addressed. Can you re-vote on that thread, or do we need to hold a new vote? I'd think the former, since the +1 votes shouldn't change.
Note that I just posted the artifacts a few minutes ago for your review. I'm on a different machine right now, so I'll need to re-install RAT to run new reports. -t > - build.xml needs Apache License Header Done > - several package.html also need Apache License header (I would put > it in all package.html files, to ensure that when the files get more > elaborate, they are appropriately licensed) Done > - some other markup files also need Apache License header Done > - there are some .java files without license header Done > -0 > - I wouldn't include the .project and .classpath files in the distribution. I debated about this originally but figured maybe people would like that they could load the source distribution in Eclipse very easily. Then again, if they want to do that, ,aybe they're more likely just to hook straight into SVN...? In any case, I removed them.
