struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License Headers (was Re: ServletRequestAware Interface doubled)
Date Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:24:36 GMT
Ted and I disagree on this - I don't believe the intention of that
policy is to make headers for source files optional. If you read the
whole policy document rather than focusing on a single word it seems
pretty clear to me that they are required. For example in the FAQ it
states the following about why source file headers are required:

Why is a licensing header necessary?
License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for
the work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the
distribution. Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the
author has reserved all rights, including the right to copy, modify,
and redistribute.

Niall

On 2/1/07, Ted Husted <husted@apache.org> wrote:
> All release *must* include the license.txt ... and ... all source
> files *should* include the header. So, assuming there's a difference
> between "must" and "should", I would say that we only need to correct
> it in future releases.
>
> * http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> The rationale for "should" is to cover the case where the source file
> becomes detached from the distribution. And, in this case, we're only
> talking about an interface.
>
> From the discussion, I'm thinking 2.0.4 is only going to be beta
> anyway, so we should just fix it for 2.0.5, and move on.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 2/1/07, David H. DeWolf <ddewolf@apache.org> wrote:
> > One thing I did notice when looking through the api quickly is that
> > a lot of the api doesn't have license headers.  We should probably fix
> > that ASAP.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1698
> >
> > Does this mean we should stop the current release that's about to go out?
> >
> > David
> >
> > Rene Gielen wrote:
> > > Working on the ProxyPrincipal problem, I discovered that we have two
> > > different ServletRequestAware interfaces:
> > > - org.apache.struts2.servlet.ServletRequestAware in api
> > > - org.apache.struts2.interceptor.ServletRequestAware in core
> > >
> > > I doubt this is by intention. ServletConfigInterceptor uses the second
> > > variant, which is IMO bad choice and makes it difficult to remove it in
> > > favor for the api variant, as it will most likely break many users code.
> > > On the other hand, since we are not in production yet, we should work on
> > > clean interfaces and risk some minor/easy to fix code breaks for users.
> > >
> > > I'm +1 for dropping the core variant.
> > >
> > > - Rene
> > >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message