Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 24740 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2003 09:42:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list docs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 09:42:43 -0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:42:54 +0200 Subject: Re: license as html? From: Erik Abele To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <53795733604.20030410003831@kess-net.de> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > >> I've wrapped xml/html around the license to get a rid of the ugly >> text/plain ;-). I'm wondering if this would cause problems. Any Opinions? > >> uploaded the result here: > > I'm not sure, whether this document is less ugly :-) hmm...hehe :) > The licence is not very capable to be transformed into html, but we need > a xml-version as basis for other transformations, e.g. when generating > pdf docs or so, or we may miss the licence there which is much "uglier". +1 > If we need a text-only version for legal reasons (don't know), we should > keep one seperate and add a note with a link at the html version. For the text-only license we should use http://apache.org/LICENSE, IMO. It's always there and always up-to-date... I don't think we need one extra in the docs tree. There is already the LICENSE file in the root directory and this should be sufficient. > Kess Cheers, Erik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org