Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFAMeY+1Ku5BTUaF8XG_yDsy4P5Y863Vh3wRQkr4CRe+b76g4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFAMeY+=Qrwy836dWq4QZGS-aw8N1nc+K0cHepL-djjqjNi+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9bWwwZ+vvaOPdjUxzypZjFzhdHc9utx0nhu_EX4HLs7GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFAMeY+1Ku5BTUaF8XG_yDsy4P5Y863Vh3wRQkr4CRe+b76g4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:50:18 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAF1jEfAuxW5G_eOwPMjkbF6YK_xW1zmhKyTNrKernpXy=OV+TA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4
From: Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd7649e25263404f8214d34

--047d7bd7649e25263404f8214d34
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > > Forking thread for discussion.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > -1
> > >> >
> > >>  >
> > >> > * Missing licence headers:
> > >> > ** README
> > >> > ** conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt
> > >> > ** test/compat/japi-compliance/README
> > >> > ** test/system/continuous/ScaleTest.odp
> > >> > **
> > >> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.odg
> > >> >
> > >> > **
> > >> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.pdf
> > >> >
> > >> > **
> > >> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.odg
> > >> >
> > >> > ** docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.pdf
> > >>
> > >> The rat check plugin typically ignores README/NOTICE/LICENSE files as
> > >> category "N" (for Notices). That's why it ignored the
> > >> japi-compliance/README and conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt. I think
> > >> it's expected that the LICENSE file covers them. At the very least, I
> > >> don't think they contain anything copyrightable that would necessitate
> > >> a license. But, for consistency, maybe we should add it anyway? I'm
> > >> not sure that consistency argument warrants blockage (for me), though.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > >
> > > The README has plenty of intellectual creativity in its content, and is
> > > therefore subject to copyright claims. It could be argued that the
> other
> > > two README files are short enough to not have copyright-able content,
> but
> > > it doesn't sound like that's the case you want to make.
> > >
> > > There is also lengthy discussion on
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114 but again, that is
> > focused
> > > on small, non-creative files. Our README does not fall into that
> > category.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. Sorry, I meant the two smaller files didn't have enough. I had
> > combined two paragraphs for succinctness and this distinction got
> > lost.
> >
> > We had previously ignored other README files, but then added licences to
> them in ACCUMULO-2534 when rat-plugin complained. I believe the assumption
> is that README files are generally minimal, but I do not want to speak for
> the developers in this case.
>
> I strongly believe that our README needs a licence header. I am under the
> impression that it never had one.
>
>
> >  >
> > >> The rest were ignored because the rat check does not check binary
> > >> files. These files should be covered by the LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> > >> Binary document files may or may not be capable of supporting license
> > >> metadata, in general, but I think the coverage by the LICENSE/NOTICE
> > >> files is sufficient. However, we can do additional things with these
> > >> files. The ScaleTest.odp could probably be converted to markdown, with
> > >> a license header. The state_diagrams are not used anywhere in the
> > >> LaTeX generation (leftover from old developer manual?), and could
> > >> probably be deleted or moved to the website or wiki, if they are
> > >> needed at all. I'm not sure which option is best. However, again, I'd
> > >> consider the LICENSE/NOTICE files sufficient, so as not to block,
> > >> especially since they didn't block any previous release (presumably
> > >> because LICENSE/NOTICE covered them), and they've been around awhile.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I do not agree that "in general, coverage by LICENSE files is
> sufficient.
> > > If that were the case, then we would not need to put headers on our
> > source
> > > files, on our markdown files, on our example configuration files,
> etc...
> > >
> > > I also do not accept "they've been around for a while and nobody
> noticed
> > > it" as a reason to continue to ignore them. Either they are a
> violation,
> > or
> > > they are not. This is not to say that we have been perfect in the past,
> > but
> > > instead we correct mistakes when they are brought to attention.
> >
> > No, the "in general" part I was referring to only was for binary
> > files, which cannot be labeled without altering the contents. That is
> > not the case here (if the document formats allow metadata), but a
> > general explanation of the assumptions that the RAT check makes. I
> > also agree precedent should not determine the correct course of
> > action. The comment about precedent was specifically made in the
> > context of the parenthetical presumption... if that presumption does
> > not hold, and they did not block for some other reason (oversight, for
> > example), that is a different statement entirely.
> >
>
> It makes sense for rat-plugin to ignore binary files because they could be
> encrypted or compressed or something else, and already have a license
> header (false positives) or are simply impossible to add a header to
> because they are machine generated.
>
> If these files have licence headers somewhere in them, then I will withdraw
> my concern over them. I felt that I performed due diligence by visually
> inspecting them, running them through "strings" program, and attempting to
> check for file metadata. I support removing them and somehow moving the
> contents to our website.
>

I think Mike's assessment that we should add license headers to our README
files is correct, even though these files are ignored by rat.  I'd be in
favor of moving the odg/odp and corresponding pdf files to the web site,
where they can sit until we figure out how we'd like to incorporate their
information into our documentation.  (Note that the policy at
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html states that it does not apply
to web site content.)  Or we could just attach those files to a ticket
whose purpose is to find a home for the information.

--047d7bd7649e25263404f8214d34--