|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 1:58 am|
|Christian Grobmeier||Feb 6, 2012 2:07 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 2:44 am|
|Franklin, Matthew B.||Feb 6, 2012 5:36 am|
|ant elder||Feb 6, 2012 5:44 am|
|Ate Douma||Feb 6, 2012 6:16 am|
|ant elder||Feb 6, 2012 6:30 am|
|Jukka Zitting||Feb 6, 2012 6:39 am|
|Ate Douma||Feb 6, 2012 6:53 am|
|Ate Douma||Feb 6, 2012 6:56 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 7:03 am|
|sebb||Feb 6, 2012 7:20 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 7:28 am|
|sebb||Feb 6, 2012 8:06 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 8:20 am|
|ant elder||Feb 6, 2012 8:29 am|
|sebb||Feb 6, 2012 8:40 am|
|Greg Stein||Feb 6, 2012 9:25 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 10:18 am|
|Craig L Russell||Feb 6, 2012 10:30 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 11:12 am|
|Greg Stein||Feb 6, 2012 11:38 am|
|Ate Douma||Feb 6, 2012 11:41 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 6, 2012 12:23 pm|
|sebb||Feb 6, 2012 12:33 pm|
|Subject:||Re: Licence headers in template files|
|Date:||Feb 6, 2012 12:33:00 pm|
On 6 February 2012 19:38, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:18, Ross Gardler <rgar...@opendirective.com> wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
... Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?" http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader is relevant here.
The README file is generally not going to be modified - or seen in isolation - so it's not so necessary for the end user to know its license from the file itself.
However, the template files are specifically designed for modification, and are likely to be seen without the LICENSE file, so IMO the enduser should see the AL header as part of the file.
That would be my thinking, too.
Not in this specific case, I think.
You keep refining the description :-P
The original template files are not modified directly, neither are the output files. Modifications are by token replacement in the simplest form or by creating a completely new template to override the original (at which point the user can define their own licence).
Personally, I call that a tool problem. Seems there ought to be some kind of comment directive that won't get included into the output. Put the ALv2 notice in that comment.
And you're saying "supply a new template", but who knows what people will do? Is there anything that prevents a downstream user from editing these templates before packaging? Probably not. Sure... you'd *like* them to provide a new template as part of Best Practices, but I doubt that is forced.
If the user generates their widgets from these templates the files we are talking about will be included in larger files, which do contain license headers. Final outputs will therefore always have an Apache header, there may be user specified headers surrounding their own contributions.
Gotcha. Yeah, that would be ugly, and it gets back to having some kind of a "don't place <this> into the output" block.
The final outputs should never be edited, it's the widget definitions (the tokens referred to above) that get edited.
Elsethread, I think Craig's suggestion is effectively saying "if the file is shorter than the text, then we will declaratively state there is no creativity in it." I'm not sure that is proper, but can certainly see the argument.
There are probably quite a few Java interface definitions that are shorter than the AL header, but I think they should surely still have the header.