Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ant.elder@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: antelder@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4F2FE990.7040805@douma.nu>
References: 
 <CAKQbXgAx7z6ApLzA+Yxkdgvusx-xVH7c1nEtbFxx1Ui_ZpUKbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E45169E9A237B4DA78078A68962F9EF1E44A9@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
	<CAJO+UbuVBSiGVD5h9fGqN1ofzo39Gfx67gg_+FLg=3FdZcjBOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F2FE0D2.50004@douma.nu>
	<CAJO+UbvPTtpT81K-ht6jFf980nPGjb2==Xdiw6AQtaGrinwU5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F2FE990.7040805@douma.nu>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAJO+Ubu_PjxQQMe1oJSjt42JGzmckwOorwzUP6P1XYK9odpHfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Licence headers in template files
From: ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 03:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ate Douma<ate@douma.nu> =A0wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 02:44 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>>>> <mfranklin@mitre.org> =A0 =A0wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sure you know this (especially since you first pointed me at thi=
s
>>>>> page), but the release FAQ [1] makes it sound like you need the heade=
r,
>>>>> if
>>>>> you assume your templates are source:
>>>>>
>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF Licens=
e text.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am no lawyer, so I will defer to someone who has more experience th=
an
>>>>> me to help you determine whether your snippets count as source.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a bug in the Release FAQ. What i've been told in the
>>>> past but which i can't find links to right now, is that the top level
>>>> LICENSE file covers everything anyway and the individual license
>>>> headers aren't strictly necessary especially for source files without
>>>> significant IP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? That then would be quite some 'bug' IMO.
>>> I can't recall have heard it said like this before, instead confirmatio=
n
>>> of
>>> the above rule quite often. Exceptions (no headers) only being allowed
>>> for
>>> sources without real IP value.
>>>
>>> Ate
>>>
>>>> IMHO if the headers are problematic for Wookie in
>>>> those files then it would be ok to just not include the header.
>>>>
>>>> =A0 =A0...ant
>>>>
>>
>> I've just asked for clarification about this over at legal -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-124
>>
> Seems to me this has been asked and answered before:
>
> =A0http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
>

One of the things I've seen come up repeatedly for poddlings is that
they should have license headers in doc files like READMEs. It could
be argued they have creative content but as one example, the HTTPD doc
type files don't have license headers.

Searching in the archives it looks like this type of question comes up
quite a lot. One longer thread is this one
http://apache.markmail.org/message/5hk2t2vl6jjtsloy which ends with:

"For now, I'll be happy with some wording in our License Policy
document that explicitly permits the PMC to use its judgement as to
whether a license header is required in a source artifact. We've seen
evidence that the current policy doesn't leave room for such things as
test cases that should not have license headers."

   ...ant

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