Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1323963445.36143.YahooMailClassic@web113513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:37:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Configure and category B
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksogYpD61_dZBRdLX+MdyYXGTzWCv9hcH1adyc2D1iZK6_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi;=0A=0A--- Gio 15/12/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> ha scritto:=0A...=
=0A> =0A> This is a good start, and thanks, Pedro, for reaching out=0A> to =
them.=0A> But we'll need more than a private email to make this=0A> suitabl=
e for inclusion in default source releases.=0A> =0A=0AI am aware of this.=
=0A=0AI just brought the matter here because we should be=0Aplanning to upd=
ate the bsh tarball and it's corresponding=0Apatch to the latest version so=
 that we don't have=0Aunexpected surprises later on.=0A=0AWhile here:=0A=0A=
The patch for beanshell and others, carries a Makefile=0Awith an LGPL heade=
r: these should all be updated.=0A=0AIn ucpp we are using already an AL2 he=
ader: perhaps=0AI am naive but we should probably not use any license=0Ahea=
ders for files in patches and assume they are under=0Athe same license as t=
he upstream code.=0A=0Acheers,=0A=0APedro.