|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|
|From:||Ross Gardler (rgar...@opendirective.com)|
|Date:||Feb 6, 2012 12:23:07 pm|
Yes, Ate is right. There is likely to gee a situation in the future when some of these files might contain creative content. I think Craig's clarification covers this and there will, in the future, need to enhance the code to strip licences.
My question here is about the way forward for a release the project is cutting now. I'm satisfied that there is no creative content in what we have at present. But I will review fully before the release and insert headers where necessary.
Thanks for the input
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 6, 2012 7:42 PM, "Ate Douma" <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:18 PM, Ross Gardler 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<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.
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).
Ross: maybe the analogy with the two ways you can define embedded comments on JSP files might make sense here.
In JSP files, which also can be seen as a template solution, including the support for including (embedding) output from a JSP fragment in a larger JSP page, you can use two type of comments:
a) standard XML type comments, e.g. <!-- a runtime visible comment --!> The comments are retained and will eventually show up in the rendered output. They are good for example for (visual) debugging purposes.
b) JSP native comments, e.g. <%-- a build time only comment --%> These comments are automatically stripped out from the output produced by the JSP, so are purely needed and used for development purposes.
Typically you'll see in most ASF (and other) projects using JSPs the latter type being use for the license header.
I would suggest a similar solution for the Wookie templates: that way the developers do receive a proper notice of the license for use, modification, and copying, while not cluttering the generated output.
And you make it easy for downstream users/developers to make the choice themselves if they want a include their own license or copyright statement visible in the generated output, or not.
While the current templates might be relatively trivial and indeed not have much of creative content, it will also be very easy to create one which does. Which might happen sooner or later, and than you're back to this question anyway. And you'll constantly keep making this decision.
Using an automatically stripped comment format the whole problem simply vanishes, you just always add the license header inside such a comment.
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.
The final outputs should never be edited, it's the widget definitions (the tokens referred to above) that get edited.