> Either that or a software grant. Strictly speaking we'd even need it > for patches, I believe. > > Then again the new license contains an implict CLA in section 5, so if > this is a patch against Ant 1.6.1, we already have the CLA.
good to know The entry in nagoya speaks from 1.6.1 http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29743 > Is there any licence or copyright statement attached to Robert's > submission? The header is license 2.0. The only place where you could find Robertīs name was an @author tag. Then I could commit the changes (hopefully today) to CVS_HEAD. Jan
