You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxsystems.com> on 2016/09/01 06:36:55 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1758700 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/
applications/accounting/lib/ applications/datamodel/ applications/manufacturing/
specialpurpose/assetmaint/ specialpurpose/birt/ specialpurpose/ecommerce/
specialpurpose/lucene/ specialpu...
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in dev
> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>
>
Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
wrote:
"In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
for not doing so.
[...]
By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
unsure."
Jacopo
A
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
So we don't apply a lazy consensus here and we need a vote? Why not follow the advice in this page?
Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I want things to be consistent
Jacques
Le 01/09/2016 � 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a �crit :
> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>
>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>
>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>> are:
>>> * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
>>> to.>>
>>>
>>> That seems OK with me
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 01/09/2016 � 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a �crit :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>>>> dev
>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>>>
>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>> reason
>>>> for not doing so.
>>>> [...]
>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
>> if
>>>> unsure."
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
Re: svn commit: r1758700 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/
applications/accounting/lib/ applications/datamodel/ applications/manufacturing/
specialpurpose/assetmaint/ specialpurpose/birt/ specialpurpose/ecommerce/
specialpurpose/lucene/ specialpu...
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxsystems.com>.
I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
Jacopo
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> > c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
> are:
> >
> > * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
> > expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
> > to.>>
> >
> > That seems OK with me
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> >
> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
> >>> dev
> >>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
> >>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
> >> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
> reason
> >> for not doing so.
> >> [...]
> >> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
> >> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
> if
> >> unsure."
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: svn commit: r1758700 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/
applications/accounting/lib/ applications/datamodel/ applications/manufacturing/
specialpurpose/assetmaint/ specialpurpose/birt/ specialpurpose/ecommerce/
specialpurpose/lucene/ specialpu...
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
>
> * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
> to.>>
>
> That seems OK with me
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>> dev
>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>
>>>
>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>> wrote:
>>
>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
>> for not doing so.
>> [...]
>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
>> unsure."
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r1758700 - in /ofbiz/trunk:
applications/accounting/ applications/accounting/lib/
applications/datamodel/ applications/manufacturing/
specialpurpose/assetmaint/ specialpurpose/birt/ specialpurpose/ecommerce/
specialpurpose/lucene/ specialpu...
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
<<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
* Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate to.>>
That seems OK with me
Jacques
Le 01/09/2016 � 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a �crit :
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in dev
>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>
>>
> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
> wrote:
>
> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
> for not doing so.
> [...]
> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
> unsure."
>
> Jacopo
>