That would be great if its already done (and it probably is from the
sound of it). I just saw the chatter on the Geronimo list and figured
I'd better get the word out here because I had not seen it here.
But I guess I was heads down on day job when the discussion was
happening.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Aug 7, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) wrote:
> Unless I'm missing a subtle difference, these are the changes we did a
> few weeks back immediately after 1.2 was released. I even used
> mogrify
> to add a "See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 for license
> information." comment to the images. There wasn't enough room to
> store
> the entire license as a comment, so I improvised a bit (there was no
> direction on how to handle this in the FAQ/etc).
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Dudney [mailto:bdudne..pache.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 12:42 AM
> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: headers discussion
>
>
> HI All,
>
> One last thread tonight...
>
> I wanted to give everyone a heads up to something I just noticed [1].
> It is a new policy for the license comments in src files.
>
> The discussion is happening on the leagal-discuss [2] lists now as to
> what time frame this will be required in. I've read Sep 1st and that
> it might be postponed but either way I think we will have to conform
> before the 3.0 release is ready to go.
>
> Anyone have any bandwidth to tackle this change?
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> [1]http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> [2]http://tinyurl.com/m6x3u
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Aug 07 2006 - 09:56:53 EDT