db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew McIntyre <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ASL boilerplate on source
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:51:34 GMT

On Oct 31, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I think that a reasonable first-time contributor could be confused  
> by Apache's rules for including copyright notices (http:// 
> www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new).

Agreed. This is perhaps intentionally vague? I guess it's best to err  
on the side of caution and include it if there doubt. Coincidentally,  
I thought about this the other day as well. But instead of launching  
into an analysis of the different kinds of non-java source files in  
the tree, I thought I would instead examine how other Apache projects  
handle this.

> So what constitutes source and documentation? We don't seem to  
> include copyright notices in:
>
> o Localized message files. These really look like a kind of source  
> code to me.

I had a hard time finding examples with which to compare. I found one  
places where properties files were used and these did not have the  
boilerplate. Another used ResourceBundles for localized messages,  
which, being .java files, had the boilerplate.

> o Other properties files used to control configurations and tests.

In almost every .properties file I looked at while searching, the ASL  
boilerplate was absent. There were a few exceptions, notably lenya  
and geronimo.

> o Ant build scripts.

For build files, the boilerplate was always absent, and this applies  
to maven-related files as well, and configure.in for C-based projects.

> o Documentation on how to build and test Derby.

While this obviously qualifies as documentation, not a single project  
I checked included the boilerplate in build or test related  
documentation.

> Where do we state our rules about which files require copyright  
> notices?

We don't. We follow the Apache guidelines you linked in your original  
mail. ;-)

> Is this the implicit rule:
>
> o Only files with the extension "java" require copyright notices.

Despite the fact that this excludes certain files which should  
probably be considered source code (e.g. metadata.properties) and  
files that are generated but without which the Derby will not  
function (e.g. DBMS.properties), this seems to be the rule currently  
in use.

So, my suggestion is to continue doing what we've been doing: attach  
the boilerplate to .java files and leave it off of other files. If  
there is a problem with that course of action, someone will  
(hopefully sooner, rather than later) let us know.

andrew

Mime
View raw message