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 17:06:06 GMT
On 31/03/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).
>

There also appears to be a compile & runtime dependency on Faban, which is CDDL.
This needs to be documented in the README and N&L files.

> 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