incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com>
Subject Rat tool, Apache header and different file types
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:20:21 GMT
Hi,

I just ran the tool on the Wicket 1.2.2 distribution, just to see how
we stack up and how much we need to change our release.

I came up with some questions when I read report that came out of the
tool, and would like to see what the policy is on these matters.

 - the tool flags all HTML documents, even generated JavaDoc. Should
we not provide the javadoc in our distribution?
 - our framework has some HTML markup, properties, CSS and JS
javascript files that are part of the product.
 - our source directories have the package.html javadoc file
 - the source files for our generated documentation are part of the
distribution, so people that download the distribution can build the
whole distribution themselves. This contains xml, fml (maven faq
document), and txt files (apt). Especially the apt format doesn't work
together with comments.

My question is, should all these files get the ASL headers? This would
be a hard hit for the embedded JavaScript, CSS and HTML files. These
will be served to clients using the Wicket framework, and the header
will add to their download size. Is there an Apache policy for these
files?

I took the liberty of looking at the Struts 2 release, and they don't
have license headers in the aforementioned files.

Martijn

-- 
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message