Re: questions license for site documents
Quoting Christopher Lenz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You're not saying that the boilerplate text should appear as comment in every generated HTML document, are you? Yes, I am. For the same reason that it's in every Java file. Cheers, Chris Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
Am 02.03.2004 um 03:06 schrieb Craig R. McClanahan: Quoting Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:24:02 + robert burrell donkin wrote: i've had a quick google and i'm not sure that there's a consensus out there on this. i like the idea of modifying the .vsl file and i'd be inclined to add both formulations. maybe this would be a good question to raise on community... Go ahead. I suspect it that we should modify site.vsl in either case. :-) If we decide to modify all the xml files in /xdocs/, appending link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/ line would be more practical ... under /document/properties/ element. (generated htmls should have meta tag, link tag or something equivalent) The instructions at the very end of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html describe *exactly* what to do to documentation files, and adding a link in the manner you described is the wrong answer. The discussion was about including a link to the license in the generated HTML documents. That is totally independent of whether the boilerplate text is included as XML comment in the xdoc sources IMHO, which should be done anyway. You're not saying that the boilerplate text should appear as comment in every generated HTML document, are you? Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On 2 Mar 2004, at 02:06, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: Quoting Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:24:02 + robert burrell donkin wrote: i've had a quick google and i'm not sure that there's a consensus out there on this. i like the idea of modifying the .vsl file and i'd be inclined to add both formulations. maybe this would be a good question to raise on community... Go ahead. I suspect it that we should modify site.vsl in either case. :-) If we decide to modify all the xml files in /xdocs/, appending link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/ line would be more practical ... under /document/properties/ element. (generated htmls should have meta tag, link tag or something equivalent) The instructions at the very end of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html describe *exactly* what to do to documentation files, and adding a link in the manner you described is the wrong answer. Instead, you should enclose the same boilerplate text at the top of each such document that is included at the top of Java sources, enclosed in the appropriate comment characters for your format (i.e. for XML, surround by !--. and --, for properties files, prefix by #, and so on). the documentation source files are pretty clear. IMHO the generated stuff is best done by altering the .vsl template. (i tried tricks with the source to get the license into the generated document but anakia dies.) the .vsl template should definitely be altered to include the boilerplate (as a comment) but i think that it'd be good to think about including a meta and/or link tags as well. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:08:42 + robert burrell donkin wrote: the .vsl template should definitely be altered to include the boilerplate (as a comment) but i think that it'd be good to think about including a meta and/or link tags as well. I performed a slight change into .vsl and committed a little while ago. (!-- -- style) site module (for www.apache.org) as well. For the time being, I do not include additional meta and/or link tags in generated html files. If any ASF members put them into htmls under site module, I'll follow them - precedent. Cheers, -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On 2 Mar 2004, at 20:21, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:08:42 + robert burrell donkin wrote: the .vsl template should definitely be altered to include the boilerplate (as a comment) but i think that it'd be good to think about including a meta and/or link tags as well. I performed a slight change into .vsl and committed a little while ago. (!-- -- style) site module (for www.apache.org) as well. missed that change 8-) looks to me like that the jakarta website is now AL2 compliant :) thanks for the hard work tetsuya. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:29:52 + robert burrell donkin wrote: looks to me like that the jakarta website is now AL2 compliant :) :-) -- Law-abiding nice citizens, Jakartaens. thanks for the hard work tetsuya. I do also thank you, for the nice question upon the licensing issue. This is an issue of critical importance which I have been giving a heed/attention to. -- Anyway, i also performed a slight change to all the XML files in site module, too (except those in /foundation/ dir). -- HTML files, generated files, as well. Perhaps things go well. (do hope) Cheers, -- Tetsuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
Might it be possible for us to add links to http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE from each generated htmls?? I think this would be enough. Use META tag. (e.g. meta name=license value=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/) Perhaps this can be easily done by editing /xdocs/stylesheets/site.vsl What would you say? -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:57:56 + (Subject: questions license for site documents) robert burrell donkin wrote: the generated html does not contain an explicit license just a copyright. am i right in thinking that now it would be better to publish them under the apache license 2? also, am i right in thinking that all the source documentation should have license notices added? - robert - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
Am 01.03.2004 um 12:53 schrieb Tetsuya Kitahata: Use META tag. (e.g. meta name=license value=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/) Perhaps this can be easily done by editing /xdocs/stylesheets/site.vsl What would you say? If anything, that should be: link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE; (See http://tantek.com/log/2004/02.html#d25t1805) Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
i've had a quick google and i'm not sure that there's a consensus out there on this. i like the idea of modifying the .vsl file and i'd be inclined to add both formulations. maybe this would be a good question to raise on community... - robert On 1 Mar 2004, at 17:25, Christopher Lenz wrote: Am 01.03.2004 um 12:53 schrieb Tetsuya Kitahata: Use META tag. (e.g. meta name=license value=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/) Perhaps this can be easily done by editing /xdocs/stylesheets/site.vsl What would you say? If anything, that should be: link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE; (See http://tantek.com/log/2004/02.html#d25t1805) Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:24:02 + robert burrell donkin wrote: i've had a quick google and i'm not sure that there's a consensus out there on this. i like the idea of modifying the .vsl file and i'd be inclined to add both formulations. maybe this would be a good question to raise on community... Go ahead. I suspect it that we should modify site.vsl in either case. :-) If we decide to modify all the xml files in /xdocs/, appending link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/ line would be more practical ... under /document/properties/ element. (generated htmls should have meta tag, link tag or something equivalent) -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - robert On 1 Mar 2004, at 17:25, Christopher Lenz wrote: Am 01.03.2004 um 12:53 schrieb Tetsuya Kitahata: Use META tag. (e.g. meta name=license value=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/) Perhaps this can be easily done by editing /xdocs/stylesheets/site.vsl What would you say? If anything, that should be: link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE; (See http://tantek.com/log/2004/02.html#d25t1805) Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
Quoting Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:24:02 + robert burrell donkin wrote: i've had a quick google and i'm not sure that there's a consensus out there on this. i like the idea of modifying the .vsl file and i'd be inclined to add both formulations. maybe this would be a good question to raise on community... Go ahead. I suspect it that we should modify site.vsl in either case. :-) If we decide to modify all the xml files in /xdocs/, appending link rel=license href=http://jakarta.apache.org/LICENSE/ line would be more practical ... under /document/properties/ element. (generated htmls should have meta tag, link tag or something equivalent) The instructions at the very end of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html describe *exactly* what to do to documentation files, and adding a link in the manner you described is the wrong answer. Instead, you should enclose the same boilerplate text at the top of each such document that is included at the top of Java sources, enclosed in the appropriate comment characters for your format (i.e. for XML, surround by !--. and --, for properties files, prefix by #, and so on). -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Craig McClanahan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On Feb 29, 2004, at 5:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: the generated html does not contain an explicit license just a copyright. am i right in thinking that now it would be better to publish them under the apache license 2? also, am i right in thinking that all the source documentation should have license notices added? Might as well make it explicit - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
