incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Licence headers in template files
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:33:23 GMT
On 6 February 2012 19:38, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 13:18, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM, "Greg Stein" <> wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 2012 11:41 AM, "sebb" <> wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > Perhaps the answer to "Why is a licensing header necessary?"
>>> >
>>> > 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.
> Sure.
> 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.

> Cheers,
> -g
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message