You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> on 2007/01/12 19:13:54 UTC

DERBY-2237: old style header in some dita source files

I'm working on this item right now:

2) Some source files have the old style copyright in the header that is
not in compliance with http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. For
example, see src/ref/rrefsistabssyscolperms.dita

I thought I'd give a heads up in case anyone else was about to dive in.

 -jean

Re: DERBY-2237: old style header in some dita source files

Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.

Kim Haase wrote:
> Oh, good, Jean. Thanks. That is the part of the issue that is a blocker,
> correct?

yes, only 4 files seemed to fall through the cracks. As soon as I fix it
in the trunk, I'll merge the change to the 10.2 branch, then downgrade
from "blocker".

I'm suddenly having trouble building, but posted a question in a
separate thread.

> The empty copyright string (item 1) is a nuisance but not a crime, I
> believe.

I agree.

> I can't figure out, though, if the "copyright" and "DC.rights.owner"
> meta tags in the HTML output (item 3) are merely unnecessary and
> incorrect (2005!) or a serious problem.

It would create confusion for anyone wanting to reuse a given generated
file as "source". In my opinion, a copyright does not belong as a meta
tag in the generate source for these files.

 -jean

> Kim
> 
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
>> I'm working on this item right now:
>>
>> 2) Some source files have the old style copyright in the header that is
>> not in compliance with http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. For
>> example, see src/ref/rrefsistabssyscolperms.dita
>>
>> I thought I'd give a heads up in case anyone else was about to dive in.
>>
>>  -jean

Re: DERBY-2237: old style header in some dita source files

Posted by Kim Haase <Ca...@Sun.COM>.

Oh, good, Jean. Thanks. That is the part of the issue that is a blocker, 
correct?

The empty copyright string (item 1) is a nuisance but not a crime, I 
believe.

I can't figure out, though, if the "copyright" and "DC.rights.owner" 
meta tags in the HTML output (item 3) are merely unnecessary and 
incorrect (2005!) or a serious problem.

Kim

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> I'm working on this item right now:
> 
> 2) Some source files have the old style copyright in the header that is
> not in compliance with http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. For
> example, see src/ref/rrefsistabssyscolperms.dita
> 
> I thought I'd give a heads up in case anyone else was about to dive in.
> 
>  -jean