On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Max Andersen <manderse@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@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
>