There's always time to set new precedent ;)<br><br>Thank you Richard!<br>~Lincoln<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Max Andersen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manderse@redhat.com" target="_blank">manderse@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm all for simple too - the full header is the minimal version red hat legal commissioned ~5 years ago.<br>
<br>
Time does seem to fix things :)<br>
<br>
Sent from a mobile device<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 08/08/2012, at 23.25, Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com">rfontana@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 05:01:54PM -0400, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:<br>
>> Hey Richard, Max,<br>
>><br>
>> Do you know what type of tasks we need to complete in order to be "correctly<br>
>> licensed" under the EPL?<br>
>><br>
>> Such as:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Include LICENSE file in base of project and deliverable archives.<br>
><br>
> Yes.<br>
><br>
>> 2. Include license header in all source files<br>
><br>
> Good idea. I've never liked the IBM/Eclipse-style license notices<br>
> (probably what Max is using :) and recently recommended this to<br>
> Galder:<br>
><br>
> Copyright 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.<br>
><br>
> Licensed under the Eclipse Public License version 1.0, available at<br>
> <a href="http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html" target="_blank">http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html</a><br>
><br>
> I'd say use something as simple as that.<br>
><br>
> - Richard<br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Lincoln Baxter, III<br><a href="http://ocpsoft.org" target="_blank">http://ocpsoft.org</a><br>"Simpler is better."<br>