incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:57:24 GMT
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Shanti.Subramanyam@sun.com> wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > > correct headers.
> > >
> > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> > >
> > >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> > >
> > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > > copyright headers.
> > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > >
> >
> > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location
> in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun
> copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the
> Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not
> lost.
> >
> > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
> >
> > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
> >
> >
>  Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all
> source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other
> copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party
> plugins which according to
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be
> left where they are - so I didn't touch them.

See my other mail - I don't think they should be in SVN.

>  However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and
> we can't insert any notices in them.

RAT takes note of some generated files - not sure exactly what it
looks for, but if you can add the necessary line to the file - or even
a line that tells humans it is generate - that would be good.

> I assume this is acceptable. We have
> binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no
> notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
>
>  For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in
> the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).

Does the 3rd party source really need to be in SVN?

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

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


Mime
View raw message