Neither for a JSR (even worse there) nor a potential RI at Eclipse
Copyright 2017 Eclipse Foundation
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
is acceptable.
The
"Copyright" line should be a potential Spec Lead, either an
organization or (if that's fine with the JCP) Otavio as an individual
but not Eclipse Foundation.
And unless the project was hosted by the ASF under "
diana.apache.org" or something similar,
>Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
has no place in any license header either. Especially not in an Eclipse project.
Please
fix this immediately (I may also raise a PR but probably too many repos
polluted and this "asf-license.txt" file should probably just say
"license.txt" and the correct plugin run, so all headers get updated,
correct?;-)
Multiple Tomitribe employees have committed, at
least 3 for Diana, 2 for Artemis, seems similar for the other repos. So
in my understanding
Copyright 2017 Tomitribe and others.
would
be best. It also reflects Otavio representing SouJava, but unless they
all represent SouJava as Eclipse committers and in the JCP, a header
saying "Copyright 2017 SouJava" may also be incorrect.
I
don't care about "Who pays the bills" here, but I mentioned in EC calls,
that Otavio's and others' affiliation may have to be clarified,
especially if they/he want to become Spec Lead of a possible future JSR.
The "Greg Luck situation" with JSR 107 was weird enough (Software AG,
Individual and now it's acutally him leading Hazelcast, don't ask me who
should actually be in those headers beside Oracle?!) with all 3
companies/Individuals also members of the JCP.
