Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ant.elder@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=AVe8fyBTsIOgZHfTFWy20dLE2FPS/lX1BjYcQ+ie51wvLy8IFWeL1TW6tNOobUSR2B
         ThQYymvm3X4nul6YCZB3heNRomBdlrAnsCwzEaR0HJsbeTZF+asAD44Vw7AOx0kUSzYT
         Lw8yDK9MG9f7nNY6MrGHKfK3GqYG2Yq3VkKz0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: antelder@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimNCMxLXfxoBp1NkjkJs0MF_wenOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTik9LGxBbZhJJe94VHkBDjKy8CZ0qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimNCMxLXfxoBp1NkjkJs0MF_wenOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 21:59:48 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTin20nkEbqg+pDzMf=ESjHAmOhH=NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Policy for BUILD and CHANGES files in podling releases
From: ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Eric Sammer <esammer@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> Incubators:
>>
>> I can't find an appropriate policy on the licensing requirements of
>> ancillary files like BUILD or CHANGES files that are commonly distributed
>> with releases. I'm specifically looking at the somewhat vague and confusing
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
> (Unfinished might be a better description. Patches appreciated ;-)
>
>> but also http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. I did find:
>>
>> "Does this apply to documentation files included in a release?"
>> Yes.
>
> legal-discuss [1] is the right list for questions like this and that
> community maintains that documentation. it's a low traffic list. to
> get a canonical answer, ask there and ask for this case to be more
> clearly documented.
>
> (IMHO BUILDING and CHANGES are corner cases. I incline towards adding
> license headers unless they are clearly trivial.)
>

I respectfully disagree on that one, i know a few projects do have the
license header on all their README, BUILDING, CHANGES etc type doc
files but i think the vast majority don't, and having the first thing
a new user sees when opening a README be a lot of legal text doesn't
seem very user friendly to me. So IMHO leave out the header until
there is some explicit policy saying it must be there. And be in good
company - [1], [2], [3] etc.

   ...ant

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/2.3.9/README
[2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/2.3.9/INSTALL
[3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/2.3.9/CHANGES

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