On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:34:34PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
In any case, it requires great care -- you actually changed at least
one (maybe more) copyright lines belonging to other people, which is
somewhat illegal. I really like all the energy you have going right
now, but we can't do a
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:09:35AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
AFAICT, sources are -all- still copyright 2005. That's not right.
The 1.3 branch is 2004, and it had a 2005 release ;)
Even if we determine we'll -quit- updating the copyrights until they
are modified, we need to update
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:09:35AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
AFAICT, sources are -all- still copyright 2005. That's not right.
The 1.3 branch is 2004, and it had a 2005 release ;)
Even if we determine we'll -quit- updating the copyrights until they
are
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:19:39AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Whoa - that's not correct(!) Although the details are tricky, and although
copyright no longer requires 'registration' of the copyrighted material, you
still must claim it or lose it, afaik. (IANAL)
Nope, not in any
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:42:29AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
and autofixes them on commit? Is that doable?
I never thought of that, it probably is, I'll take a look.
This can be made work, but we'd have to give a bot karma on the whole
httpd tree.
Alternately, if svn can dump us a
* Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-19 11:55:50]:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:42:29AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
and autofixes them on commit? Is that doable?
I never thought of that, it probably is, I'll take a look.
This can be made work, but we'd have to give a bot
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Copyright dates on 1.3/2.0/2.2 forthcoming releases?
AFAICT, sources are -all- still copyright 2005. That's not right.
Before I t/r 1.3, I'll be updating the files to reflect the
new copyright. We can determine some better way of doing it
post-release :)
--
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I t/r 1.3, I'll be updating the files to reflect the
new copyright. We can determine some better way of doing it
post-release :)
No. Please do not update any copyright years.
We are only supposed to indicate the year of *first*
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 08:31:25AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I t/r 1.3, I'll be updating the files to reflect the
new copyright. We can determine some better way of doing it
post-release :)
No. Please do not update any
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eek, This has already been done, for trunk and for the 3 branches.
Ugh.
Then, we should just update to Jackrabbit's license clause if we're
going to have churn in that area. But, if we're going to touch it,
then we should change it to the
Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
I'm not very keen on doing this because this would involve
double-commits (aka each commit leads to another one used to recommit
changes done to the copyright line date -when needed-).
Well, we've traditionally done that (all files, all at once), however
this proposal
On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 08:31:25AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I t/r 1.3, I'll be updating the files to reflect the
new copyright. We can determine some better way of doing it
On 4/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit/HEADER.txt
The only pedantic item I see with that wording is that it says the
Apache Software Foundation instead of The. ;-) *ducks and run*
-- justin
On Apr 19, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit/
HEADER.txt
The only pedantic item I see with that wording is that it says the
Apache Software Foundation instead of The.
14 matches
Mail list logo
