You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> on 2007/04/14 22:47:19 UTC
Source license headers in OpenJPA
The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
practice, as documented here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
200612.mbox/%
3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
headers, only a license notice.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
One more thing -- there are tools to help with this:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
The source headers in Beehive were updated in a matter of minutes, and
there were a *lot* of them. :) Just make sure that the files that
are CDDL licensed or don't otherwise have headers (shouldn't be any of
these...) don't inherit one.
The tools are here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/
If anyone doesn't have access to this, just let me know.
Eddie
On 4/14/07, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig--
>
> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this before now.
>
> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the
> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs to be
> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> > The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
> > practice, as documented here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >
> > There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
> > normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
> > 200612.mbox/%
> > 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
> > Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
> > headers, only a license notice.
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Marc,
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll follow up with the responsible team and
see if it can be improved.
Craig
On Apr 15, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>> I notice you found some files with no license headers at all.
>
> I had actually known those files existed, but I didn't know if the
> format supported comments. They were services files, and I
> investigated and found that our services parser actually does
> support comments. However, the parser in
> javax.persistence.Persistence (that parses the META-INF/
> javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider file) surprisingly
> doesn't support comments, so I had to leave the license out of that
> file.
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Good exercise anyway. I notice you found some files with no
>> license headers at all.
>>
>> Good job.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
>>>>
>>>> Eddie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers,
>>>>> just to
>>>>> get this taken care of quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hi Eddie,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam,
>>>>> Cliff, but
>>>>> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Craig--
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
>>>>> >> before now.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006,
>>>>> IMHO the
>>>>> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on
>>>>> needs
>>>>> >> to be
>>>>> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
>>>>> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
>>>>> > that will update the license headers easier than manually
>>>>> editing
>>>>> > all the files.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Craig
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Eddie
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>>>>> >>> practice, as documented here:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>>>>> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>>>> >>> 200612.mbox/%
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the
>>>>> source
>>>>> >>> headers, only a license notice.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Craig Russell
>>>>> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>>>> >>> products/jdo
>>>>> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Craig Russell
>>>>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>>>> products/jdo
>>>>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
> I notice you found some files with no license headers at all.
I had actually known those files existed, but I didn't know if the
format supported comments. They were services files, and I
investigated and found that our services parser actually does support
comments. However, the parser in javax.persistence.Persistence (that
parses the META-INF/javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider file)
surprisingly doesn't support comments, so I had to leave the license
out of that file.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Good exercise anyway. I notice you found some files with no license
> headers at all.
>
> Good job.
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>>
>> And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
>>
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>> Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
>>>> get this taken care of quickly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi Eddie,
>>>> >
>>>> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam,
>>>> Cliff, but
>>>> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Craig--
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
>>>> >> before now.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006,
>>>> IMHO the
>>>> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
>>>> >> to be
>>>> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>> >
>>>> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
>>>> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
>>>> > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
>>>> > all the files.
>>>> >
>>>> > Craig
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Eddie
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>>>> >>> practice, as documented here:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>>>> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>>> >>> 200612.mbox/%
>>>> >>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com
>>>> %3e
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the
>>>> source
>>>> >>> headers, only a license notice.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Craig Russell
>>>> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>>> >>> products/jdo
>>>> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Craig Russell
>>>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>>> products/jdo
>>>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Good exercise anyway. I notice you found some files with no license
headers at all.
Good job.
Craig
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
>> Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
>>> get this taken care of quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Eddie,
>>> >
>>> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff,
>>> but
>>> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Craig--
>>> >>
>>> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
>>> >> before now.
>>> >>
>>> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006,
>>> IMHO the
>>> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
>>> >> to be
>>> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
>>> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
>>> > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
>>> > all the files.
>>> >
>>> > Craig
>>> >>
>>> >> Eddie
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>>> >>> practice, as documented here:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>>> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>> >>> 200612.mbox/%
>>> >>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the
>>> source
>>> >>> headers, only a license notice.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Craig Russell
>>> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> >>> products/jdo
>>> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > Craig Russell
>>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> products/jdo
>>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
Them's fightin' words. ;)
But, I will say that I've tried giving it another shot of late just
to make sure I'm not missing anything.
On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> > Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> > On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
> >> get this taken care of quickly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Eddie,
> >> >
> >> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but
> >> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Craig--
> >> >>
> >> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
> >> >> before now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO
> >> the
> >> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
> >> >> to be
> >> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
> >> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
> >> > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
> >> > all the files.
> >> >
> >> > Craig
> >> >>
> >> >> Eddie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> >> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
> >> >>> practice, as documented here:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
> >> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
> >> >>> 200612.mbox/%
> >> >>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
> >> >>> headers, only a license notice.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Craig Russell
> >> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
> >> >>> products/jdo
> >> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > Craig Russell
> >> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
> >> products/jdo
> >> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :)
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
>> get this taken care of quickly.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Eddie,
>> >
>> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but
>> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
>> >
>> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>> >
>> >> Craig--
>> >>
>> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
>> >> before now.
>> >>
>> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO
>> the
>> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
>> >> to be
>> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >
>> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
>> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
>> > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
>> > all the files.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >>
>> >> Eddie
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>> >>> practice, as documented here:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> >>>
>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>> >>> 200612.mbox/%
>> >>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>> >>>
>> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
>> >>> headers, only a license notice.
>> >>>
>> >>> Craig Russell
>> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>> >>> products/jdo
>> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Craig Russell
>> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>> products/jdo
>> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >
>>
>>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :)
Eddie
On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
> get this taken care of quickly.
>
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > Hi Eddie,
> >
> > Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but
> > I recall you asking for it... ;-)
> >
> > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >
> >> Craig--
> >>
> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
> >> before now.
> >>
> >> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the
> >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
> >> to be
> >> updated to include the appropriate headers.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
> > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
> > that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
> > all the files.
> >
> > Craig
> >>
> >> Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
> >>> practice, as documented here:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >>>
> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
> >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
> >>>
> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
> >>> 200612.mbox/%
> >>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>>
> >>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
> >>> headers, only a license notice.
> >>>
> >>> Craig Russell
> >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
> >>> products/jdo
> >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
>
>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just to
get this taken care of quickly.
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Eddie,
>
> Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but
> I recall you asking for it... ;-)
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
>> Craig--
>>
>> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this
>> before now.
>>
>> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the
>> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs
>> to be
>> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read
> the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts
> that will update the license headers easier than manually editing
> all the files.
>
> Craig
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>>> practice, as documented here:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>
>>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>> 200612.mbox/%
>>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>
>>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
>>> headers, only a license notice.
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Eddie,
Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but I
recall you asking for it... ;-)
On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> Craig--
>
> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this before
> now.
>
> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the
> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs to be
> updated to include the appropriate headers.
>
> Thoughts?
The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read the
document below in detail. It contains references to scripts that will
update the license headers easier than manually editing all the files.
Craig
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
>> practice, as documented here:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>> 200612.mbox/%
>> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
>> headers, only a license notice.
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com>.
Craig--
You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this before now.
Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the
0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs to be
updated to include the appropriate headers.
Thoughts?
Eddie
On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current
> practice, as documented here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is
> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
> 200612.mbox/%
> 3cc5e632550612201546w570be8cay89abfa43526a33b5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source
> headers, only a license notice.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>