openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eddie O'Neil" <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Source license headers in OpenJPA
Date Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:59:38 GMT
  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 <mprudhom@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 <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!
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message