On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> > > Two thoughts:
> > >
> > > 1) How is the end-year of the copyright done
I fixed the typo (missing "The" in "The Apache Software Foundation")
in the actual artifacts voted on for geronimo release. The project
name is the responsibility of the project using the legal-bundle.
Its been 72 hours...
IIUC there are no objections in principle to this scheme of
generat
On Mar 10, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 10.03.2008, at 20:10, Shane Isbell wrote:
...
--
Geronimo :: Directory Plugin
Copyright 2003-2008 Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
Apache Software Founda
On 10.03.2008, at 20:10, Shane Isbell wrote:
...
--
Geronimo :: Directory Plugin
Copyright 2003-2008 Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
---
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Two thoughts:
> >
> > 1) How is the end-year of the copyright done? AIUI, that should be the
> > year of last edit and not the year in which it is built. So if
On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM, David Jencks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's what it does:
By default, the LICENSE file is the standard apache license. The
NOTICE
file is generated from a velocity template; here's an example of
the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's what it does:
> By default, the LICENSE file is the standard apache license. The NOTICE
> file is generated from a velocity template; here's an example of the output
> (between - lines which are not included)
>
You weren't blocked - the vote passed on 26 Feb. The notice file
should have less information - but it was not a blocker.
FWIW, I like David's solution - it does put the onus back on the
developer to understand the licenses of all your dependencies, but I
feel that is necessary in this case
This sounds good to me. I recently tried to release a first version of
Apache NMaven in the incubator and got blocked on this very issue of having
the dependency info in the Notice file. Any solution would be appreciated.
Shane
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wr
IIUC we've previously agreed that the only LICENSE and NOTICE files
that actually need to be in svn are at the root of expected checkouts
such as trunk, branches/xxx, and tags/xxx; all other LICENSE and
NOTICE files in distributable artifacts can be generated by some
process. Projects that
10 matches
Mail list logo
