accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Tubbs (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1241) Update ASF copyrights?
Date Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:21:16 GMT


Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-1241:

{quote}Most non-java files have Apache headers.{quote}
Yes, those headers were mostly added after this ticket was created. However, the question
about whether the header should include copyright still applies to non-java files.

When you say "borrowed", do you mean, a derivative work or dependency?

In the case of a derivative work, it seems that the derivative work is our work, and as long
as we properly credit the original work, we can follow our own standards, rather than follow
theirs. (Maybe our standards should include our header, followed by a brief comment explaining
that this work is derived from the original source whose header is as follows, then the original

If, on the other hand, we're simply using their work as a dependency, then our packaging is
wrong, and we should add their work as a proper dependency (in a separate package).

The problem I'm seeing is that when bugs are fixed and features are added, I see everything
under "org.apache.accumulo" as our own work, because I don't necessarily know the history
of it to know why a license header contains a different copyright date or different formatting
standards for the header that exists. I don't necessarily know, for instance, that the header
is intending to convey that the original work, from which the current version is derived,
had that copyright date, but that the derived work has a newer copyright date. Nor would I
know if the original work is copied/pasted in its entirety, with only the package name and
the visibility changed from protected to public.

I think some of these concerns can be alleviated if we were more strict about packaging dependencies
as dependencies, and adding more thorough comments to explain why the header from the original
work was preserved (in addition to our own header, as suggested above, not in place of it).

As for maintaining the NOTICE file's last copyright date, I think we can add that as a filtered
maven resource, so it is automatically updated with the current year, so it doesn't get out
of date, and the same goes for the assembly/pom.xml, which can use the same property to keep
that up to date.
> Update ASF copyrights?
> ----------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-1241
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: dist, docs
>            Reporter: Christopher Tubbs
>            Assignee: Billie Rinaldi
>              Labels: copyright
>             Fix For: 1.5.0
> I'm not entirely sure how the copyright notices work, but I think the dates need to be
updated, if present. At the very least, the documentation probably needs to be updated to
reflect updated dates. Also, the RPM/DEB package info might need to be updated (I think I
saw a 2011 in there somewhere).
> Some of the older java files also have an inconsistent Apache License 2.0 header, and
some of those have copyright notices and some don't. Most, if not all, non-java files don't
have them.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message