Re: ASF Source Header documentation pages disagree

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Hi Cliff,

On Dec 20, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:

> Hi Sebb,
>
> This is my fault.  I've left things in this confused state for too
> long.  I'll fix this up next week -- really!  Everyone gets to
> spam/harass me if I don't have it mostly done by the new year.

I notice that the reference [2] still hasn't been updated. Is it time  
to harass/spam you?

Sadly, the entire source tree for OpenJPA used [2] as the definitive  
guide for copyright/license headers.  :-(

Craig
>
> More specific answers below.  Thanks for taking the time to point out
> these inconsistencies.
>
> Cliff
>
> On 12/20/06, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just noticed some inconsistencies in the license documentation on the
>> web-site...
>>
>> The new rules for applying licences to source files are at:
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> This doc is the normative one right now, although I need to move the
> doc to /dev and put in a redirect .
>
>> However, there are still some rules at:
>>
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> Much of this is redundant or conflicting with [1], but there is still
> some good stuff here that needs to not get lost (e.g. copying or
> referencing third-party licenses in the LICENSE file).
>
>>
>> and
>>
>> [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply
>
> This is still good advice to any non-ASF projects that want to use the
> Apache License.  It might be confusing that ASF projects do something
> a little different (due to the collective nature of our works), but it
> would be a bit of a pain to change the language at all -- as an
> appendix to the license, it's become considered part of what v2.0 is.
> See http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php.
>
>> which disagree with [1] - in particular with regard to the Copyright
>> sentence in the boilerplate for source files.
>>
>> Also:
>>
>> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/ refers to [2] - it should
>> presumably refer to [1]
>>
>> [2] could probably be deleted ?
>
> [4] definitely needs at least a minor update.  See my note about  
> [2] above.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PPMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo