You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@click.apache.org by Demetrios Kyriakis <de...@gmail.com> on 2008/12/20 15:42:21 UTC
License header overuse?
Hi,
Just saw that the Apache license headers were added all over.
But why in *.htm files?
Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just look
ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered "resources".
Besides, what on earth is trying Apache to "protect" on a "$form" by
mutilating it with that license text?
Thank you,
Demetrios.
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>.
Yeah that could work.
Thanks
bob
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>wrote:
> BTW, what about including Apache header using Velocity comments (##) ? With
> this it looks like there's no technical problem with Apache header rendered
> in the output.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
>
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am pretty sure the license header in example files is required.
>>>>
>>> Let me clarify though. Any of these files will be embedded in other files
>>> during page rendering, resulting in multiple Apache license blocks in the
>>> rendered HTML?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep that is correct.
>>
>> The template folder is below:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/template/
>>
>> It ships as part of the distro and can be run as an ant task to generate a
>> quick-start web application.
>>
>> In the meantime I can generate a Rat report to highlight all the files
>> that are problematic.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> bob
>>
>>
>
--
http://incubator.apache.org/click/
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
BTW, what about including Apache header using Velocity comments (##) ?
With this it looks like there's no technical problem with Apache
header rendered in the output.
Andrus
On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>> I am pretty sure the license header in example files is required.
>> Let me clarify though. Any of these files will be embedded in other
>> files during page rendering, resulting in multiple Apache license
>> blocks in the rendered HTML?
>
>
> Yep that is correct.
>
> The template folder is below:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/template/
>
> It ships as part of the distro and can be run as an ant task to
> generate a quick-start web application.
>
> In the meantime I can generate a Rat report to highlight all the
> files that are problematic.
>
> regards
>
> bob
>
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>.
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> I am pretty sure the license header in example files is required.
>
> Let me clarify though. Any of these files will be embedded in other
> files during page rendering, resulting in multiple Apache license blocks
> in the rendered HTML?
Yep that is correct.
The template folder is below:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/template/
It ships as part of the distro and can be run as an ant task to
generate a quick-start web application.
In the meantime I can generate a Rat report to highlight all the files
that are problematic.
regards
bob
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>.
Below is the list of files RAT complains about. I've not listed all
the files, only the top directories with some comments on why they are
part of the distribution.
Btw there seems to be some legal discussions going on right now that
W3C documentation cannot be shipped with Apache software as their
license prohibits making changes which against Apache policy.
==================================================
Offline copy of W3C css2 spec is included in Click
==================================================
/click/click-svn/documentation/docs/css2/*
==================================================
Offline copy of W3C HTML spec is included in Click
==================================================
/click/click-svn/documentation/docs/html/*
================================================
Offline copy of Servlet API is included in Click
================================================
/click/click-svn/documentation/docs/servlet-api/*
================================================================
Commenting this file breaks parsing because HTML imports must be
defined on one line
================================================================
/click/click-svn/examples/src/net/sf/click/examples/control/RichTextArea.htm
=======================================================
Sitepoint article demo
(http://www.sitepoint.com/print/fancy-form-design-css/)
=======================================================
/click/click-svn/examples/webapp/assets/css/cssform.css
/click/click-svn/examples/webapp/assets/css/fieldset-styling-ie.css
=====================
Quick-start templates
=====================
/click/click-svn/template/*
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I am pretty sure the license header in example files is required.
Let me clarify though. Any of these files will be embedded in other
files during page rendering, resulting in multiple Apache license
blocks in the rendered HTML?
Andrus
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I am pretty sure the license header in example files is required. I
will follow up on legal-discuss on this though. Could you also send me
the links to the template files.
Andrus
On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
> Hi Andrus,
>
> The .htm files in question are the ones from Click examples.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/
>
> Some of the template files are quite small while others are larger:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/edit-customer.htm?revision=724639&view=markup
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/ajax/ajax-accordian.htm?revision=724876&view=markup
>
> kind regards
>
> bob
>
>
>
> Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>> Which .htm files are we talking about?
>> I guess a template project will be an exemption. Any other files?
>> Andrus
>> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
>>> Demetrios Kyriakis wrote:
>>>
>>>> But why in *.htm files?
>>>> Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
>>>> The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just
>>>> look ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
>>>> Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered
>>>> "resources".
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah if its not required we can remove it. However could you
>>> please point out where Apache docs states that these files do not
>>> need the header license?
>>>
>>> Another area where I'm not sure of is the template project. If we
>>> add headers to the templates, users who create quick-start
>>> applications will have the Apache license added to their projects.
>>> Not what they would expect.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>
>
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrus,
The .htm files in question are the ones from Click examples.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/
Some of the template files are quite small while others are larger:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/edit-customer.htm?revision=724639&view=markup
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/click/trunk/click/examples/webapp/ajax/ajax-accordian.htm?revision=724876&view=markup
kind regards
bob
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Which .htm files are we talking about?
>
> I guess a template project will be an exemption. Any other files?
>
> Andrus
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
>
>> Demetrios Kyriakis wrote:
>>
>>> But why in *.htm files?
>>> Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
>>> The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just look
>>> ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
>>> Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered
>>> "resources".
>>
>>
>> Yeah if its not required we can remove it. However could you please
>> point out where Apache docs states that these files do not need the
>> header license?
>>
>> Another area where I'm not sure of is the template project. If we add
>> headers to the templates, users who create quick-start applications
>> will have the Apache license added to their projects. Not what they
>> would expect.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Which .htm files are we talking about?
I guess a template project will be an exemption. Any other files?
Andrus
On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Bob Schellink wrote:
> Demetrios Kyriakis wrote:
>
>> But why in *.htm files?
>> Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
>> The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just
>> look ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
>> Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered
>> "resources".
>
>
> Yeah if its not required we can remove it. However could you please
> point out where Apache docs states that these files do not need the
> header license?
>
> Another area where I'm not sure of is the template project. If we
> add headers to the templates, users who create quick-start
> applications will have the Apache license added to their projects.
> Not what they would expect.
>
> regards
>
> bob
>
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Demetrios Kyriakis <de...@gmail.com>.
>> But why in *.htm files?
>> Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
>>
>> The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just look
>> ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
>>
>> Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered
>> "resources".
>
>
> Yeah if its not required we can remove it. However could you please
> point out where Apache docs states that these files do not need the
> header license?
Those files are "resources", i.e. they are included/parsed into the the
border-template.htm
(this one should have the header however).
I think the license header is not to be used where it interferes with
the "functionality" or the "purpose" of a file. In case of a "click
*.htm", file that license header even as "comment" clearly interferes as
it is the "purpose" of click to be simple as "$form" for the user,
and not have 20 times the license header in that file (since there can
be more #includes in the border template page.
> Another area where I'm not sure of is the template project. If we add
> headers to the templates, users who create quick-start applications will
> have the Apache license added to their projects. Not what they would
> expect.
Template files are resources too, so should have no license headers.
Instead, a much more flexible solution would be to use an
#include(.userdir/license_file.txt) call in them, so that users can use
their own license(or let the default), or when making open source
project with it, than the default apache license would be included :).
Also I think it was proposed a long time ago to move the entire
"template logic" and resources to "/click/tools/standalone/" and just
call a task from there (together with the other already included tasks,
and e.g. those I send you two hours ago).
Thank you,
Demetrios.
Re: License header overuse?
Posted by Bob Schellink <sa...@gmail.com>.
Demetrios Kyriakis wrote:
> But why in *.htm files?
> Those are not "complete files" but snippets.
>
> The simplicity and beauty of click just disappears and they just look
> ugly (no more one line files with $form in them :( ).
>
> Please remove them form *.htm files - they should be considered
> "resources".
Yeah if its not required we can remove it. However could you please
point out where Apache docs states that these files do not need the
header license?
Another area where I'm not sure of is the template project. If we add
headers to the templates, users who create quick-start applications
will have the Apache license added to their projects. Not what they
would expect.
regards
bob