incubator-zeta-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jerome Renard <jerome.ren...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Date Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:59:46 GMT
Gavin,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gav... <gavin@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> -----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.
>

Ok.

> 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. ;)
>

Phew, I first thought a mass adding of licenses was required ;)

>>
>> > 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.
>

Ok.

> 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.
>

Cool, thanks a lot :)

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

Mime
View raw message