openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Date Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:48:55 GMT

> 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 <mprudhom@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 <Craig.Russell@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!
>


Mime
View raw message