[forge-dev] EPL header required?

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

There's always time to set new precedent ;)

Thank you Richard!
~Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Max Andersen <manderse at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm all for simple too - the full header is the minimal version red hat
> legal commissioned ~5 years ago.
>
> Time does seem to fix things :)
>
> Sent from a mobile device
>
> On 08/08/2012, at 23.25, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 05:01:54PM -0400, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> >> Hey Richard, Max,
> >>
> >> Do you know what type of tasks we need to complete in order to be
> "correctly
> >> licensed" under the EPL?
> >>
> >> Such as:
> >>
> >> 1. Include LICENSE file in base of project and deliverable archives.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> 2. Include license header in all source files
> >
> > Good idea. I've never liked the IBM/Eclipse-style license notices
> > (probably what Max is using :) and recently recommended this to
> > Galder:
> >
> > Copyright 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.
> >
> > Licensed under the Eclipse Public License version 1.0, available at
> > http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> >
> > I'd say use something as simple as that.
> >
> > - Richard
> >
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120809/3f5a2a58/attachment.html