Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <501A8C45.2010608@widodh.nl>
References: 
 <CA+96GG4k0R-L6KordnURjRCW6ogiFcdw5t3GrKEDTE2GUA843Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<501A8C45.2010608@widodh.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:22:55 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG7JE0eQnWZ=EdOgjL5R8sTGWq6j_K13gH+HEXpLC5Zpvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: License headers for the debian folder
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 04:12 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>>
>> We are good to go with this folder.
>>
>> RAT report here:
>>
>> https://raw.github.com/chipchilders/asf_cloudstack_RAT_results/master/debian.txt
>>
>> The only exceptions are debian packaging files that don't support
>> commenting (AFAIK).
>
>
> Do we really need licenses in these files? Sounds to me like a bit of "over
> licensing".
>
> These are just files to build the Debian packages with.
>
> Wido
>

I'm assuming that we don't, but I'm just reporting what I can't easily
fix as I go.

My assumption is that we'll eventually get to a baseline level of
"compliance" that includes a number of known exceptions within the RAT
reports.  These would be some of those exceptions.  Another example:
the certificate and key files.

Once I get through all of the directories, we'll have a clear picture
of (1) what are the outstanding issues that have to be dealt with, and
(2) what are the "expected exceptions" that we'll agree to leave
alone.

Fair?

-chip