|
Where is the 1997,2005 coming from? --That's incorrect for the ASF product. For all 10.2 books it should be 2004,2006.
Would you be willing to modify this issue to be a more general copyright cleanup for the DITA source and generated docs? --I'm spotting other problems and don't want to hijack this issue unless you're willing. The 1997,2005 comes from different files:
[srh@scott src]$ find . -name '*copyright.dita' ./ref/rrefcopyright.dita ./devguide/rdevcopyright.dita ./tuning/rtuncopyright.dita ./adminguide/radmincopyright.dita ./pt_BR/ref/rrefcopyright.dita ./pt_BR/getstart/rgscopyright.dita ./getstart/rgscopyright.dita ./tools/rtoolscopyright.dita You can hijack this issue :-) But the change only modifies the pdf output files. I just did a build of the current docs: and the copyright works with the patch I submitted (it does work)and comes out:
Copyright2004, 2006: Apache Software Foundation Changing short summary from "adds copyright header in the form of Copyright©1997, 2005: Apache Software Foundation" to "Cleanup copyrights in the DITA source and generated docs".
For problem #2, these *copyright.dita files need to be corrected by somebody who knows Brazilian Portuguese:
pt_BR/adminguide/radmincopyright.dita pt_BR/getstart/rgscopyright.dita pt_BR/ref/rrefcopyright.dita I checked all the other *copyright.dita files and they looked good. I was incorrect in where the copyright data is pulled from:
getstartderby.ditamap <copyryear year="2004, 2006"/> <copyrholder>Apache Software Foundation</copyrholder> in dita2fo-shell.xsl: <xsl:value-of select="//*[contains(@class,' topic/copyright ')]/copyryear/@year"/>: <xsl:value-of select="//*[contains(@class,' topic/copyright ')]/*[contains(@class,' topic/copyrholder ')]"/><xsl:text> </xsl:text> So the data is really coming from the ditamap files. A few files slipped through the cracks last summer with a patch I committed for
These files in the Brazilian Portuguese translations of the Derby docs have the old style copyright dates and apache license notice:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/adminguide/radmincopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/getstart/rgscopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/ref/rrefcopyright.dita They need to be brought up to date with their English counterparts: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/adminguide/radmincopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/getstart/rgscopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/ref/rrefcopyright.dita If somebody can step forward and do the updates, please let us know. Otherwise, I plan to switch these Brazilian Portuguese notices to English until they can be translated at a later date. I think the English counterparts are incorrect. The comment in the file is correct, but the displayed text is incorrect. The copyright notice should be just for the ASF, not the licencees, and the text following it is the text for a header for a source file. It is not suitable for user documentation.
See the discussion for Yeah, I just noticed the same thing on another thread. I believe the copyright page that users view should conform to this:
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html But that page is out of date, and I noticed mention of that lately on another list. I'll chase that reference down. The mention that I recalled about apply-license.html being out of date really had to do with the NOTICE file [1], and wasn't resolved from what I could see.
At any rate, http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html points to [2], which is what we should be doing on each copyright page the end user sees (updating the 2006 to 2007 where it makes sense): Copyright 2004-2006 The Apache Software Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. Agree? Disagree? [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/%3c2d12b2f00610311518h416db374yb3c2b97f85ac76b5@mail.gmail.com%3e [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply I believe that these Brazilian Portuguese copyright pages:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/adminguide/radmincopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/getstart/rgscopyright.dita https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/docs/trunk/src/pt_BR/ref/rrefcopyright.dita only need a change of the Copyright line from this: Copyright 1997, 2005 Apache Software Foundation, ou seus concessores de licença, conforme se aplique. to this: Copyright 2004-2006 The Apache Software Foundation From my knowledge of Spanish, it looks to me like the text below that is a translation of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply -- so it's correct. Jean wrote:
------------------------------ Copyright 2004-2006 The Apache Software Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. Agree? Disagree? ------------------------------ Minor disagree. I think the majority of the text there is for a source header, as a covering page for a documentation set ,the phrase "this file" makes no sense. I think it can be as simple as: ---------------------- Copyright 2004-2006 The Apache Software Foundation Apache Derby is an open source subproject of the Apache DB project, licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ------------------------- This is from the javadoc overview: http://db.apache.org/derby/javadoc/publishedapi/jdbc3/ I understand your point about the "this file" reference, but the HTTPD project, which seems to be the de facto model for other projects uses it. I downloaded httpd-docs-2.2.2.en.pdf and it has a section at the beginning that clarifies it with the title "About the PDF Documentation" on page 2:
Copyright (c) 2005 The Apache Software Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. I think the context for "this file" is this file comprising the documentation. The pdf also includes the text for the Apache License in its entirety starting on page 9 in the Release Notes chapter. Online docs follow a similar format: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/license.html Incidently, at the bottom of each HTTP online doc page, there is this:
Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. The second line links to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 . For example, see: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_speling.html The diff file and the diff file HTMLized with patches to update the files src/pt_BR/adminguide/radmincopyright.dita, src/pt_BR/ref/rrefcopyright.dita and src/pt_BR/getstart/rgscopyright.dita for the new copyright notice.
The pt_BR files radmincopyright.html, rgscopyright.html and rrefcopyright.html with the patches applied. If you think it is ok, I can commit the patches.
Thanks so much for looking at this, Halley.
I think the Brazilian copyrights need to go from this: Copyright 2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation ou seus licenciadores, conforme se aplique. to this: Copyright 2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation And I think the text that is already committed is correct because it matches http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply . Could you confirm that? Jean,
If we remove the line: Segunda Edição (Julho de 2005) and change the line: Copyright 1997, 2005 Apache Software Foundation, ou seus concessores de licença, conforme se aplique. to: Copyright 2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation the text that is already committed will match the text shown in http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply translated into Brazilian Portuguese Thanks, Halley, that's what I thought. --The Derby 10.1 docs also include that boilerplate notice, but the Copyright line itself had the additional "or its licensors, as applicable." wording, which needed to be dropped in 10.2 for reasons I won't go into. We'll get it untangled. I'm about to post another comment with a suggestion for the English docs, and I suggest you hold off doing anymore until a decision gets made.
I've done a little more research on the HTTP project and looked at current doc source to see if anything has changed for the end user (I believe nothing has changed).
1) The pdf's include - a copy of the 2.0 license text from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 - the boilerplate notice from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#apply , but only the first part of it (through the URL, ommitting the last paragraph). I'm guessing that the PDFs might in part do this because no where in the Apache License 2.0 is the URL for the license provided. 2) The html docs include - a copy of the 2.0 license text from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 - the footer of each page has this, with the second line linked to http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html: Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. I found the decision regarding the footer for html generated from xml at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-docs/200402.mbox/%3c3C9B039A-5D9F-11D8-A8A3-000393753936@gbiv.com%3e 3) The Apache License itself isn't translated -- it gets included in English in all the translated docs. I'd like to float a suggestion. Since the Derby docs do not currently include a copy of the Apache License 2.0, I suggest modifying the copyright page for each book to include the first part of the boilerplate like the HTTP PDFs do so that the URL is publicized (but noting the Derby years, of course): Copyright 2004-2006 The Apache Software Foundation. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. Then include a license subsection containing the complete text of the Apache License 2.0 (only in English). This would get the base information into all doc types (PDF, html book, and html). We should still additionally look into doing a footer for the html pages that links to the Apache License, but that requires someone with DITA expertise, whereas I could myself make the suggested change. What do people think? If I hear no feedback to the contrary in a couple days, I'll go ahead and make the changes as I suggested. Here is a first shot at rewording the copyright notice and adding the apache license, like the http project does, initially just for the Getting Started guide.
copyright-2237-1.diff - svn diff (patch -p0 at the trunk level) copyright-2237-html-1.zip (html pages: index, toc, copyright and license) In keeping with the http project, I ended up making the license a separate page (separate topic). The http project spent a lot of time fussing to make the format of the license text pretty (for example, see http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/license). I spent long enough fussing to realize that obtaining a pretty format is non trivial, so included it as a codeblock. It's ok in the html and definitely clunky in the PDF because some of the text is just long enough to wrap. Thoughts? Looks good to me, can't hurt to include the license in the docs. I've taken the text you used on the copyright page, and used this for my
I shortened the line length for the Apache license so at least the lines don't wrap on the PDF (doesn't look quite so clunky), and committed changes to the trunk for the English manuals, revision 502474. I still need to update the Brazilian Portuguese and Japanese translations.
This patch syncs up the Brazilian Portuguese docs with the English changes in revision 502474. Files:
copyright-2237-pt_BR.diff -- patch for all 3 books copyright-2237-html-pt_BR.zip -- review html for just the Getting Started guide If anyone spots any problems, please let me know. I corrected the Copyright line and notice on the Copyright page in the Japanese translation of the Getting Started guide in the trunk, revision 502765. I didn't attempt to add the license page even though it's in English. That would require adding the file to the ditamap and I don't know how to set the navtitle in Japanese. In any case, correcting the copyright is the most important thing.
Committed changes to the Brazilian Portuguese translations to the trunk, revision 504638.
1) Scott Hutinger fixed the problem with the empty "Copyright" string in the header in the PDF books in
2) Source files with the old style copyright were fixed in revisions 495755 (trunk) and 495756 (10.2 branch). 3) The copyright tags mentioned in the description don't actually get used. 4) The copyright notice was corrected and a license page added to the books in trunk revisions 502474 (English), 502765 (Japanese), and 504638 (Brazilian Portuguese). The changes for English and Portuguese were merged to the 10.2 branch with revisions 509777 and 509785. (The Japanese doc isn't in the 10.2 branch.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Closed
Blocker
Cleanup copyrights in the DITA source and generated docs
DERBY-2227.