www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Legal Header in Unreleased Code
Date Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:32:14 GMT
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Pierre Smits <pierresmits@apache.org> wrote:
> Thank you, Justin. That was fast. Kudos! And it is good to know that the topic has come
up before.
> Reading that section of the link provided, I can now see where the differences in viewpoints
stem from, and will continue to lead to confusion.
> The 2nd aspect states:
> Each source file should include the following license header
> The 'should' implies that there may be exceptions, where it is not required to have the
section in play.
> Is there a possibility to
> replace the 'should' with 'must', or
> have the section of [1] enhanced with a limited list of exceptions?
> [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers

I believe the "should" is due to, in some cases, a different header
might be in use (e.g. a source file with a valid and compatible
license other then ASL)

One example that comes to the top of my head is some spec schema files
we used to have in Tuscany (you will need to view source to see the
contents of the file)

Luciano Resende

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message