You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org> on 2004/02/23 20:19:21 UTC
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
>> - All releases made after March 1 must use the new Apache License 2.0.
>> Please note that this applies to *all* releases, even maintenance
>> releases where the original went out under the 1.1 license.
>> Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html for more
>> information on applying the license.
Shall we tackle the update this week?
>> * In conjunction with the the discussion about relicensing and some
>> copyright issues, the Board is establishing an official policy in this
>> area:
>> - each and every file must have exactly *one* Copyright line,
>> specifying
>> The Apache Software Foundation. additional individual or corporate
>> copyrights are not allowed.
>> (of course, binary files or certain restrictively formatted files
>> cannot include the copyright and license, but the copyright/license
>> header should be in everything possible)
Does this mean we have to have the full licence in each file
...or is the one and only copyright line good enough - if
there is a reference to the licence?
>> - author tags are officially discouraged. these create difficulties in
>> establishing the proper ownership and the protection of our
>> committers. there are other social issues dealing with collaborative
>> development, but the Board is concerned about the legal ramifications
>> around the use of author tags
We had quite a discussion about this...
..so remove the author tags on the same update?
WDYGT
--
Torsten
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Torsten Curdt dijo:
>>> - author tags are officially discouraged. these create difficulties
>>> in
>>> establishing the proper ownership and the protection of our
>>> committers. there are other social issues dealing with
>>> collaborative
>>> development, but the Board is concerned about the legal
>>> ramifications
>>> around the use of author tags
>
> We had quite a discussion about this...
> ..so remove the author tags on the same update?
If this is the "mandate", then it will be OK to change the ASL and remove
it at once.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> It consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals
>>> on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation and was originally created
>>> by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>. Please visit the project
>>> homepage (http://cocoon.apache.org) for more information.
>>> --
>>
>> I think that the Stefano entry should not have special treatment
>> at the top, but rather be one entry in the list that would follow,
>> presumably the first entry.
>
> If that's ok with him... Stefano?
Fine for me.
--
Stefano.
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >> Will we just have all files as 1999-2004 or do we need to
> >> determine the actual first and last modification date of
> >> each file? The latter is an awful lot of work, but if we
> >> need to do it then there are some tools in the CVS module
> >> "committers/tools" which might help.
> >
> > Nah... we never cared about that before. I don't think...
> > ...does anyone think we have to??
>
> I don't think so. Last time we had blind upgrade to (c) -2003.
The beginning date is the main problem. Some files would
not come into existence until say 2002. Blindly putting
an erroneous start date of 1999 may lead to legal issues,
but IANAL.
--David
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> --
>>> /*
>>> Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights
>>> reserved.
>>>
>>> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
>>> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
>>> You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>
>>> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied.
>>> See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>>> limitations under the License.
>>> */
>>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Why the leading spaces?
>
>
> Well, the old header had spaces, too
> ...but we can omit them :)
Can we please add leading stars ("*")?
/*
* Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
...
It autoformats better.
>> Will we just have all files as 1999-2004 or do we need to
>> determine the actual first and last modification date of
>> each file? The latter is an awful lot of work, but if we
>> need to do it then there are some tools in the CVS module
>> "committers/tools" which might help.
>
>
> Nah... we never cared about that before. I don't think...
> ...does anyone think we have to??
I don't think so. Last time we had blind upgrade to (c) -2003.
Vadim
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>.
I noticed your discussion regarding the new licenses.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> Nah... we never cared about that before. I don't think...
> ...does anyone think we have to??
>
About the copyright dates, you can read the email of Conor McNeill.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.ant.devel/26477/match=copyright+years
Both the java and the python program to update the license boiler plates
pay attention to the respect of prior copyright dates information.
(they are in the committers repository)
Cheers,
Antoine
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
...so we are right back on track - let's get this unpleasant stuff
sorted out:
for java and text
--
/*
* Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
* implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
--
for XML
--
<!--
Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express orimplied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
-->
--
Regarding the start dates...
...maybe we could check where they need to be exact before we
decide here?
Although there is a perl script in the committers
module this does not look like it's a run-it-and-you-are-done
thing. Plus keeping this consistent in the future might be
a tedious task. Too bad there is no CVS substitution for this
For files other that code... does really every configuration
file or README etc have to have license? ...or only what we
think needs protection?
the NOTICE file
--
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
It consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals
on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation. Please visit the
project homepage (http://cocoon.apache.org) for more information.
Cocoon was originally created by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
...add more here
--
and we remove all the author tags :)
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
>>--
>>/*
>> Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>
>> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
>> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
>> You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>
>> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
>> See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>> limitations under the License.
>>*/
>>--
>
>
> Why the leading spaces?
Well, the old header had spaces, too
...but we can omit them :)
> Will we just have all files as 1999-2004 or do we need to
> determine the actual first and last modification date of
> each file? The latter is an awful lot of work, but if we
> need to do it then there are some tools in the CVS module
> "committers/tools" which might help.
Nah... we never cared about that before. I don't think...
...does anyone think we have to??
> Obviously the boilerplate for *.xml etc. will be different
> comment markers.
Of course!
> Actually i have noticed a trend that people are focussing
> on the *.java files only (see the current scripts in
> "committers/relicense") and are forgetting the big job
> of every other text file.
Hm.... does really each and every file need the boilerplate??
...code for sure - but usual text files?
>>--
>> This product includes software developed by
>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>
>> It consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals
>> on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation and was originally created
>> by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>. Please visit the project
>> homepage (http://cocoon.apache.org) for more information.
>>--
>
>
> I think that the Stefano entry should not have special treatment
> at the top, but rather be one entry in the list that would follow,
> presumably the first entry.
If that's ok with him... Stefano?
>>+ and we remove all author tags
>
>
> I suppose so, and in both *.java and *.xml
Well, this seems to need some more discussion ;)
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> So what about the following...
>
> + the boilerplate
>
> --
> /*
> Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
>
> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
> You may obtain a copy of the License at
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>
> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> limitations under the License.
> */
> --
Why the leading spaces?
Will we just have all files as 1999-2004 or do we need to
determine the actual first and last modification date of
each file? The latter is an awful lot of work, but if we
need to do it then there are some tools in the CVS module
"committers/tools" which might help.
Obviously the boilerplate for *.xml etc. will be different
comment markers.
Actually i have noticed a trend that people are focussing
on the *.java files only (see the current scripts in
"committers/relicense") and are forgetting the big job
of every other text file.
> + copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> as LICENCE file the root dir
>
> + the NOTICE file in the root dir
>
> --
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> It consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals
> on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation and was originally created
> by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>. Please visit the project
> homepage (http://cocoon.apache.org) for more information.
> --
I think that the Stefano entry should not have special treatment
at the top, but rather be one entry in the list that would follow,
presumably the first entry.
> + and we remove all author tags
I suppose so, and in both *.java and *.xml
--David
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Steven Noels dijo:
>>
>>>On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>+ and we remove all author tags
>>>
>>>I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
>>>little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
>>>because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
>>>contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>>
>>
>> [RT]:
>>
>> Will be enough to browse the CVS to find the folks involved in a
>> concrete
>> file or block? No, we cannot trace many files to the first post. The
>> original file, who made changes, etc?
>>
>> "When I started to use the auth-fw, the @author tags allow me to know
>> the
>> names of people that was involved in this. After this I also used the
>> names to harvest the mailarchives looking for help about the auth-fw.
>
> Yes, the author tag says something about who started the code, but
> nothing about how knows about that particular version of it and it
> creates copyright problems and increases spam.
>
> +1 to remove them and +1 to pay back with our credits in the
> Changes/Credits page.
I Agree.
Antonio Gallardo
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Steven Noels dijo:
>
>>On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+ and we remove all author tags
>>
>>I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
>>little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
>>because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
>>contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>
>
> [RT]:
>
> Will be enough to browse the CVS to find the folks involved in a concrete
> file or block? No, we cannot trace many files to the first post. The
> original file, who made changes, etc?
>
> "When I started to use the auth-fw, the @author tags allow me to know the
> names of people that was involved in this. After this I also used the
> names to harvest the mailarchives looking for help about the auth-fw.
Yes, the author tag says something about who started the code, but
nothing about how knows about that particular version of it and it
creates copyright problems and increases spam.
+1 to remove them and +1 to pay back with our credits in the
Changes/Credits page.
--
Stefano.
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Steven Noels dijo:
> On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> + and we remove all author tags
>
> I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
> little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
> because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
> contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
[RT]:
Will be enough to browse the CVS to find the folks involved in a concrete
file or block? No, we cannot trace many files to the first post. The
original file, who made changes, etc?
"When I started to use the auth-fw, the @author tags allow me to know the
names of people that was involved in this. After this I also used the
names to harvest the mailarchives looking for help about the auth-fw.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Change List, Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
David Crossley wrote:
>Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Noels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>+ and we remove all author tags
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
>>>little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
>>>because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
>>>contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, a lot of people gave their +1
>>
>>I am far from pushing this - actually I see it exactly like you do.
>>
>>
...
>IIRC, when we talked about author tags last time, one of
>the main points was that people can look at the "Changes"
>page to find out who was the major contributer for a certain
>facility and who has been working on it.
>
Then it will have to be significantly extended. Currently it does not
indicate in coherent (searchable) way what cocoon component or sitemap
component or cocoon block this change relates to. And you need better
granularity then simply "core", "cforms block"; you need something which
goes at least to the level of package (and author tags are on the class
level).
Vadim
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >
> >> + and we remove all author tags
> >
> >
> > I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
> > little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
> > because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
> > contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>
> Well, a lot of people gave their +1
>
> I am far from pushing this - actually I see it exactly like you do.
>
> ...but IIRC the board explicitly discouraged the author tag and
> we also had a lengthy discussion about this. Since we need to
> update the license anyway, I thought this might be the right time
> to follow the board's advice.
IIRC, when we talked about author tags last time, one of
the main points was that people can look at the "Changes"
page to find out who was the major contributer for a certain
facility and who has been working on it. This is also by far
the best way to give encouragement to the community. We do not
need the author tags in code and docs.
There is an added benefit to this approach. It makes us devs
be more mindful of keeping Changes up-to-date.
--David
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Tim Larson dijo:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>> >On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> >
>> >>+ and we remove all author tags
>> >
>> >
>> >I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
>> >little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
>> >because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
>> >contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>>
>> Well, a lot of people gave their +1
>>
>> I am far from pushing this - actually I see it exactly like you do.
>>
>> ...but IIRC the board explicitly discouraged the author tag and
>> we also had a lengthy discussion about this. Since we need to
>> update the license anyway, I thought this might be the right time
>> to follow the board's advice.
>
> Just to clarify my +1...
> I do NOT think removing the author tags is a generally good idea.
> I voted +1 because since (unless I misinterpreted) the board is
> just about requiring it, so I thought why not do it now.
>
> An author tag just says this person put significant work into this
> file. Since there is no copyright notice next to the @author tag,
> and there IS a clear license or reference to a license right above
> it *with a copyright notice and the name of the copyright holder*
> I have a hard time seeing how the board finds a problem with the
> presence of the author tags.
>
> If the board makes us (or convinces us that it is best to) remove
> the tags then I do not have a problem with my name leaving with
> the rest of the names, but I will think this is a silly way to
> "encourage" voluntary collaborative development.
>From the cla.txt:
2. You hereby grant to the Foundation a non-exclusive, irrevocable,
worldwide, no-charge, transferable copyright license to use, execute,
prepare derivative works of, and distribute (internally and externally, in
object code and, if included in your Contributions, source code form) your
Contributions. Except for the rights granted to the Foundation in this
paragraph, You reserve all right, title and interest in and to your
Contributions.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla.txt
We need a new CLA 2.0 to reflect the new directives?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:09PM +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
> >On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >
> >>+ and we remove all author tags
> >
> >
> >I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
> >little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
> >because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
> >contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
>
> Well, a lot of people gave their +1
>
> I am far from pushing this - actually I see it exactly like you do.
>
> ...but IIRC the board explicitly discouraged the author tag and
> we also had a lengthy discussion about this. Since we need to
> update the license anyway, I thought this might be the right time
> to follow the board's advice.
Just to clarify my +1...
I do NOT think removing the author tags is a generally good idea.
I voted +1 because since (unless I misinterpreted) the board is
just about requiring it, so I thought why not do it now.
An author tag just says this person put significant work into this
file. Since there is no copyright notice next to the @author tag,
and there IS a clear license or reference to a license right above
it *with a copyright notice and the name of the copyright holder*
I have a hard time seeing how the board finds a problem with the
presence of the author tags.
If the board makes us (or convinces us that it is best to) remove
the tags then I do not have a problem with my name leaving with
the rest of the names, but I will think this is a silly way to
"encourage" voluntary collaborative development.
--Tim Larson
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> + and we remove all author tags
>
>
> I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
> little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
> because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
> contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
Well, a lot of people gave their +1
I am far from pushing this - actually I see it exactly like you do.
...but IIRC the board explicitly discouraged the author tag and
we also had a lengthy discussion about this. Since we need to
update the license anyway, I thought this might be the right time
to follow the board's advice.
*shrug* we already touch each file anyway
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 26 Feb 2004, at 17:12, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> + and we remove all author tags
I find this just a little bit too reactionary - especially for the
little known/used areas of code. We haven't had "ownership issues"
because of them in the past, not? These tags sometimes help to find a
contact, when questions remain unanswered on the list.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>.
So what about the following...
+ the boilerplate
--
/*
Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
*/
--
+ copy of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
as LICENCE file the root dir
+ the NOTICE file in the root dir
--
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
It consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals
on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation and was originally created
by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>. Please visit the project
homepage (http://cocoon.apache.org) for more information.
--
+ and we remove all author tags
cheers
--
Torsten
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Feb 24, 2004, at 02:53, Steven Noels wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2004, at 02:27, David Crossley wrote:
>
>> My reading is that we need the short "boilerplate" version
>> in every file.
>
> +1
>
>>> We had quite a discussion about this...
>>> ..so remove the author tags on the same update?
>>>
>>> WDYGT
>>
>> +1
>
> +1
>
> Stefano, what about your name which has been plastered in the current
> license header across all files: do you want a mentioning in the
> NOTICE file then?
+1
--
Stefano.
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 24 Feb 2004, at 02:27, David Crossley wrote:
> My reading is that we need the short "boilerplate" version
> in every file.
+1
>> We had quite a discussion about this...
>> ..so remove the author tags on the same update?
>>
>> WDYGT
>
> +1
+1
Stefano, what about your name which has been plastered in the current
license header across all files: do you want a mentioning in the NOTICE
file then?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: ASF Board Summary for February 18, 2004
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >> - All releases made after March 1 must use the new Apache License 2.0.
> >> Please note that this applies to *all* releases, even maintenance
> >> releases where the original went out under the 1.1 license.
> >> Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html for more
> >> information on applying the license.
>
> Shall we tackle the update this week?
>
> >> * In conjunction with the the discussion about relicensing and some
> >> copyright issues, the Board is establishing an official policy in this
> >> area:
> >> - each and every file must have exactly *one* Copyright line,
> >> specifying
> >> The Apache Software Foundation. additional individual or corporate
> >> copyrights are not allowed.
> >> (of course, binary files or certain restrictively formatted files
> >> cannot include the copyright and license, but the copyright/license
> >> header should be in everything possible)
>
> Does this mean we have to have the full licence in each file
> ...or is the one and only copyright line good enough - if
> there is a reference to the licence?
My reading is that we need the short "boilerplate" version
in every file.
See http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
and follow the link to the example "boilerplate".
> >> - author tags are officially discouraged. these create difficulties in
> >> establishing the proper ownership and the protection of our
> >> committers. there are other social issues dealing with collaborative
> >> development, but the Board is concerned about the legal ramifications
> >> around the use of author tags
>
> We had quite a discussion about this...
> ..so remove the author tags on the same update?
>
> WDYGT
+1
--David