Re: some issues with docs: license review

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ David Crossley <[email protected]> was heard to say:
| While trying to build the XML Commons website, i am running
| into quite a lot of issues.
|
| Licenses is one issue. I was first attracted by some tricky
| copyright bits in the Resolver documentation, but ended up finding
| some discrepancies elsewhere too.

Um, I'll be happy to try to straighten out the resolver bits.

[...]
| -------------------------------------------------------
| 4) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/LICENSE
| ----------
|  * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
|  *
|  *
|  * Copyright (c) 2001 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
|  * reserved.
| ...
| ----------
|
| This has different text to 1) and a different way to define "year"
| (which is still 2001). It refers to "Xalan" rather than "Apache"
| and additionally refers to IBM. I wonder if that is a relic from
| copying another license.

I'm sure it is. When I moved it to Apache I was told it had to have
the Apache Software License in every file, so I "cut-and-pasted" it
from another file. I must have chosen my source poorly.

I suggest it be globally replaced with the proper license.

[...]
| -------------------------------------------------------
| 6) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/*.java
|
| These have embedded license as per 4)
| i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".
|
| A couple of files say "Lotus" instead of IBM.
|
| If 4) is replaced by 1) then these headers would change too.

Yes.

| -------------------------------------------------------
| 7) xml-commons/java/tests/resolver/src/*.java
| ----------
|
| These have embedded license as per 4)
| i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001".

Ditto.

| -------------------------------------------------------
| 8) xml-commons/java/docs/resolver.xml
| ----------
|
| The entity resolver article has had many lives.
| Now there is this version at xml-commons.

It has indeed.

| The document has the following explicit copyright statements, which
| will get rendered when Forrest generates the HTML documentation.
| ----------
| Copyright © 2001, 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
| Copyright © 2000 Arbortext, Inc.
| ----------
| Do we just add "2003 ASF" as an additional holder?
|
| Forrest will also automatically add this to the bottom
| of the page footer ...
| ----------
| Copyright © 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
| ----------
| I presume that that sits okay with the abovementioned explicit
| statements for past years

I'm comfortable that it does. If something more explicit than my
comfort is required, then I can pursue it. Or I can pull this doc out
of the repository and just publish it separately, but I'd rather not.

| Also this Resolver article links to a copyright.html which
| does not exist. Should this link to the licence at 5) ?

Yes, that's fine.

| -------------------------------------------------------
| 9) xml-commons/java/docs/release-notes.xml
| ----------
|
| The resolver release notes have the copyright holder as Sun.
| Perhaps this should be only ASF because the notes cover the
| xml-commons release of Resolver.

Yeah, I probably forgot to cut-and-paste that one.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
[email protected]    | Things work out best for those who make the
XML Standards Architect | best of the way things work out.
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/DbewOyltUcwYWjsRAkEHAJwPH1kF4/DTVCAIPQCh3Gup570fEgCfei/C
uDMZE5vMPpmIx8loSnSrXUs=
=NOJB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----