incubator-zeta-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
Subject RE: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Date Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:36:56 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerome Renard [mailto:jerome.renard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 11 April 2011 5:09 PM
> To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Gav...
> Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
> 
> Hi Gavin,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Gav... <gavin@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header.
> > This means they are either unlicensed or have the old ez.no license
> > header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses.
> >
> 
> As far as I can see only test files do not have (or have incorrect) license
> headers.

Sure, that'll account for most of them, test files or not , some of them, like
the source files (mostly .php) that perform the testsshould have a license
header, whereas the majority of files being used as data files, or otherwise
being used to perform the tests, are ok and even necessary in some cases
to not have the license applied. That is fine and not in dispute. What we
therefore need to do is go through them and add any files/directories/patterns
that we can 'exclude' from the RAT reports by making entries in the
.ratignore [3]  file in your svn.

I was going to go through the first few mentioned in the RAT report here but I
will instead as a test do the first few using reviewboard, you'll then see I'm not
suggesting mass adding of licenses. ;)

> 
> > These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding.
> >
> > * - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other
> > branches have been checked yet but they will be next.
> >
> > (your  website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also
> > for another time)
> >
> > I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use
> > the Apache License.
> >
> > Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started
> > and provide patches.
> >
> 
> It is. I have one question though:
> How non text/plain files are supposed to be handled regarding the license ?
> For example Archive/tests/data/ezpublish.ott is an OpenOffice.org file, does
> it require any license header as well ? If so adding a license for that kind of
> document might break a couple of tests.

No, it is fine to 'exclude' those sorts of files from the RAT reports by adding them
to the .ratignore file list.

The main thing we need to do here is exclude what needs excluding, that then
may leave some that need licenses adding, and/or may leave some that need
the ez.no and/or (L)GPL licenses replacing.

This then allows Zeta Components to point to the RAT report as part of applying
to the Incubator for a release to happen, some folks are fairly strict and you will
get picked up on licensing issues, it is in fact most podlings main stumbling block
when doing a  release so whilst most coders will find this boring/pointless/etc 
it is in fact necessary to fulfil one of the objectives mentioned in your last
board report. (do a release)

> 
> > (as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git
> > workflows I'd also like to provide some of these patches via git patch
> > and/or pull requests etc so please let me know how I can do that at
> > any stage and if its welcomed)
> >
> 
> Would it be acceptable for you to use the reviewboard instance ?

Sure, I'll have a go.

We recently added mail hooks to jira & reviewboard & the mailing lists so I'll
create an issue and link the reviews to it.


> 
> Thanks :)

Gav...

[3] - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/zetacomponents/trunk/.rat-ignore


> 
> --
> Jérôme Renard
> http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard


Mime
View raw message