Re: svn commit: r1758700 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/ applications/accounting/lib/ applications/datamodel/ applications/manufacturing/ specialpurpose/assetmaint/ specialpurpose/birt/ specialpurpose/ecommerce/ specialpurpose/lucene/ specialpu...

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in dev
> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>
>
Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
wrote:

"In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
for not doing so.
[...]
By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
unsure."

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

<<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:

  * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate to.>>

That seems OK with me

Jacques


Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in dev
>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>
>>
> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
> wrote:
>
> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
> for not doing so.
> [...]
> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
> unsure."
>
> Jacopo
>

[Pierre Smits]

Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
>
>  * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
> to.>>
>
> That seems OK with me
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>> dev
>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>
>>>
>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>> wrote:
>>
>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong reason
>> for not doing so.
>> [...]
>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@ if
>> unsure."
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.

Jacopo

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
> > c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
> are:
> >
> >  * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
> > expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
> > to.>>
> >
> > That seems OK with me
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> >
> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
> >>> dev
> >>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
> >>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
> >> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
> reason
> >> for not doing so.
> >> [...]
> >> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
> >> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
> if
> >> unsure."
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

So we don't apply a lazy consensus here and we need a vote? Why not follow the advice in this page?

Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I want things to be consistent

Jacques


Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was confirmed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>
>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>
>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>> are:
>>>   * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
>>> to.>>
>>>
>>> That seems OK with me
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>>>> dev
>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>>>
>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>> reason
>>>> for not doing so.
>>>> [...]
>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
>> if
>>>> unsure."
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> So we don't apply a lazy consensus here and we need a vote? Why not follow
> the advice in this page?
>

My suggestion is to go in one of the following two directions:
1) apply the standard license header to all the README files
2) or start a vote with a clear summary with your proposal for a different
license header (the vote should specify the exact header proposed, to which
files will be applied and why)

Jacopo

>
> Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I
> want things to be consistent
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>
>> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
>> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
>> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
>> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
>> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
>> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was
>>> confirmed.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre Smits
>>>
>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>
>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>>
>>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>>>>
>>> are:
>>>
>>>>   * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files.
>>>> The
>>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
>>>> relate
>>>> to.>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems OK with me
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>>>>> dev
>>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>>>>>
>>>> reason
>>>
>>>> for not doing so.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
>>>>>
>>>> if
>>>
>>>> unsure."
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 01/09/2016 à 11:33, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> So we don't apply a lazy consensus here and we need a vote? Why not follow
>> the advice in this page?
>>
> My suggestion is to go in one of the following two directions:
> 1) apply the standard license header to all the README files
> 2) or start a vote with a clear summary with your proposal for a different
> license header (the vote should specify the exact header proposed, to which
> files will be applied and why)

Wait, I don't want a different license header in readme files (w/ or w/o suffixes)
I just want things to be consistent. Which resumes to no header at all in those files, as I committed and as is recommended by the ASF

Do we really need a vote for that?

Jacques

>
> Jacopo
>
>
>> Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I
>> want things to be consistent
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira are
>>> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by Jacques
>>> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
>>> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
>>> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the files,
>>> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was
>>>> confirmed.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>
>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>>>
>>>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>>>>>
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>>>    * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files.
>>>>> The
>>>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
>>>>> relate
>>>>> to.>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems OK with me
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus in
>>>>>>> dev
>>>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The mail
>>>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal and I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>>>>>>
>>>>> reason
>>>>> for not doing so.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact legal-discuss@
>>>>>>
>>>>> if
>>>>> unsure."
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
> Wait, I don't want a different license header in readme files (w/ or w/o
> suffixes)
> I just want things to be consistent. Which resumes to no header at all in
> those files,


Consistency can be applied also by adding the standard license header to
the missing README files and this is what I suggest.


> as I committed and as is recommended by the ASF
>

Removing the license header is not what the ASF recommends, if you refer to
the following:

"A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
file's creativity, add the license header to the file.

Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:

   - Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
   expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
   to.
   - Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
   tests to fail.
   - 'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
   larger file would have duplicate licensing headers.

PMCs should use their judgement, err on having a source header and contact
legal-discuss@ if unsure."
Jacopo

[*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

>
> Do we really need a vote for that?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I
>>> want things to be consistent
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>
>>> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira
>>>> are
>>>> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by
>>>> Jacques
>>>> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
>>>> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
>>>> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the
>>>> files,
>>>> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was
>>>>
>>>>> confirmed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>
>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>>>
>>>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>>    * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
>>>>>> relate
>>>>>> to.>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems OK with me
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> dev
>>>>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The
>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal
>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> for not doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact
>>>>>>> legal-discuss@
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>> unsure."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

OK we can also add the ASL2 headers to all our readme files, not a problem with me

Jacques

Le 01/09/2016 à 12:34, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Wait, I don't want a different license header in readme files (w/ or w/o
>> suffixes)
>> I just want things to be consistent. Which resumes to no header at all in
>> those files,
>
> Consistency can be applied also by adding the standard license header to
> the missing README files and this is what I suggest.
>
>
>> as I committed and as is recommended by the ASF
>>
> Removing the license header is not what the ASF recommends, if you refer to
> the following:
>
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
> does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the
> file's creativity, add the license header to the file.
>
> Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
>
>     - Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
>     expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate
>     to.
>     - Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
>     tests to fail.
>     - 'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
>     larger file would have duplicate licensing headers.
>
> PMCs should use their judgement, err on having a source header and contact
> legal-discuss@ if unsure."
> Jacopo
>
> [*] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
>
>> Do we really need a vote for that?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that I have no strong opinion on putting the ASL2 header or not, I
>>>> want things to be consistent
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 10:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see where the consensus was reached: discussions in Jira
>>>>> are
>>>>> not the same as discussion on the dev list (which is mentioned by
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>> in "as per consensus in dev mail thread"). Also the conversation between
>>>>> Jacques and Pierre in Jira is resolved with an unclear resolution to me.
>>>>> In my opinion it is safer to include the license header in all the
>>>>> files,
>>>>> including README files and the cost of adding it is negligible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I asked first whether there was consensus. And that was
>>>>>
>>>>>> confirmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually Pierre just followed http://www.apache.org/legal/sr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <<Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>     * Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
>>>>>>> relate
>>>>>>> to.>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That seems OK with me
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 01/09/2016 à 08:36, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:53 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Legal statements are not required in readme files, as per consensus
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> dev
>>>>>>>>> mail thread with title 'Shorter ASL2 header in short files'. The
>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>> thread started here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> message/pc5bzrsiupef7xjt
>>>>>>>>> Consensus? I was actually the only one to reply to your proposal
>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "In my opinion we should include the full header, that is important
>>>>>>>> to comply with the ASF licenses policies, unless there is a strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> for not doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> By the way, my preference is, inline with what is mentioned in that
>>>>>>>> document, to "err on having a source header and contact
>>>>>>>> legal-discuss@
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> unsure."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>