At the moment the process is that: - Java source has the license statement, mergefile has not (but its only in proposal) - XDoclet extracts infos from sourcefile, but not the copyright statement (only in normal comment block, not in javadoc comment) ? something (XDoclet, Velocity? havent found the source) merges both files - Velocity generates the HTML
And the copyright statement is hardcoded in the DVSL script: proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0126: <!-- PAGE FOOTER --> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0127: <tr> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0128: <td> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0129: <div align="center"><font color="$body-link" size="-1"><em> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0130: Copyright © 2000-2003, Apache Software Foundation proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0131: </em></font></div> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0132: </td> proposal/dvsl/task.dvsl:0133: </tr> I agree with having the copyright years in both of them, because - if the manual generation will be the official way - the mergefiles are part of the src-distro and therefor under ASF license. So we have to merge these two statements into one statement for generated html page. java:2000-2003 + merge:2004 = html:2000-2004 java:2000,2002-2003+merge:2003 = html:2000,2002-2003 ... would be a peace to think about ... Jan > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 7. September 2004 08:52 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: cvs commit: > ant/proposal/xdocs/src/org/apache/tools/ant/taskd efs SubAnt.xml > > On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Jan Materne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The value could be specified in the mergefile and the source file. > > It is supposed to be inside both of them already. They both have a > proper license and copyright statement, no? I have no idea whether > the build process is able to access the information, though. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
