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

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2004/02/06 22:53:55 UTC

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 NOTICE LICENSE buildconf

--On Friday, February 6, 2004 9:48 PM +0000 nd@apache.org wrote:

> nd          2004/02/06 13:48:40
>
>   Modified:    .        LICENSE buildconf
>   Added:       .        NOTICE
>   Log:
>   begin relicensing httpd-2.1 to Apache License, Version 2.0
>
>   Revision  Changes    Path
>   1.10      +12 -56    httpd-2.0/LICENSE

If I understand <http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html> correctly, 
isn't LICENSE supposed to be the *full* license not the boilerplate?

Or, am I missing something?  -- justin

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 NOTICE LICENSE buildconf

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.

--On Friday, February 6, 2004 10:55 PM +0100 André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> 
wrote:

> Doh! I'll fix it :-)
>
> Thanks, nd

Thank *you* for taking this on!  ;-)  -- justin

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 NOTICE LICENSE buildconf

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.

* Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:

> --On Friday, February 6, 2004 9:48 PM +0000 nd@apache.org wrote:
> 
> > nd          2004/02/06 13:48:40
> >
> >   Modified:    .        LICENSE buildconf
> >   Added:       .        NOTICE
> >   Log:
> >   begin relicensing httpd-2.1 to Apache License, Version 2.0
> >
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.10      +12 -56    httpd-2.0/LICENSE
> 
> If I understand <http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html> correctly, 
> isn't LICENSE supposed to be the *full* license not the boilerplate?
> 
> Or, am I missing something?  -- justin

Doh! I'll fix it :-)

Thanks, nd