Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2010E10D28 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50289 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2013 19:31:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 50061 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2013 19:31:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 50051 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jul 2013 19:31:31 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:31:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.175] (HELO mail-wi0-f175.google.com) (209.85.212.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:31:25 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id m6so6610040wiv.8 for ; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HJ4PkUs33+1bKuMjy1LVsL1StIT+xFJZ7kb85aC3v74=; b=e6fo/HvHTsQY9ekPeuabHCrKnbdBA7kI9NqC+uNXjpmeSbgGCLfZfUWbLDoGHNsfYy d7M/7QuekAtYmavpy151B87nTJg83pa7H9cZREFzIYGbWM62VfZFYPQo8ycFr8Cuomik T8RROm1wvHhm+owPrJqpV+xpH3eoBW/d+NIIe64S42IEO+s1S7VB4RnwuderMxu4Z0Na fZ5oCddFcvLAmgPjovRC+jKldV4LedbMvUC01OzD5Oy8QuUMWk23+9ysYoZQ17hMbVmX g5g0EifP5cKUMDuulo+N+o7/O326im2r4kcw9347Xpb0TRQ5KCq1XxRzsgrZ9C+Ojq2a w1zg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.9.134 with SMTP id z6mr4213628wia.2.1372966265552; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.157.66 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 20:31:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Exceptions to the license header requirements From: Stephen Connolly To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" Cc: Maven Project Management Committee List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2b1be8c05e104e0b49e05 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c2b1be8c05e104e0b49e05 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Connolly > > wrote: > > > > On 4 July 2013 14:29, Sam Ruby > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Stephen Connolly > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > FYI this issue would be good to get resolved quickly as we currently > >> > have a > >> > vote for the release of Maven 3.1.0 which is blocked pending > resolution > >> > of > >> > this question. > >> > >> Can you confirm that previous releases of Maven shipped with a > >> substantial portion of these very same tests in essentially their > >> current state? > > I don't see a direct answer to this question, but I believe I can > reasonably interpolate one from your answers. > > [snip] > > > > >The test cases were built up over > > quite some period of time and the expertise that developed a large chunk > of > > these tests has effectively retired from the project (Benjamin Bentmann) > > [snip] > > > Just because it is hard to identify > > if/how many tests require the absence of a header in order to ensure the > > defect they are designed to detect is resolved does not mean we should > never > > try. > > > > My preference is therefore that we add into the NOTICE some (to be > > determined text) that states that the test data is covered by the license > > but for historical reasons we are not comfortable adding the headers to > > these files at this point in time. > > > > My plan is to tighten the exemptions in the current RAT checks that we > use: > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/348f7164336e4c2209255daa2acdfcdfcaa8fa5e > > over the course of a number of releases. > > > > I suspect that we will always have some exceptions against our automated > > checks and hence will always need some statement in the NOTICE file to > cover > > that (as I understand it) > > > > If the opinion is that we can leave the NOTICE file as is... well woopity > > doo! > > > > Less to do for now, other than over time start removing some of the > > exceptions in our RAT checks. > > My read is that these tests were indeed publicly released previously, Correct. Sorry my bad for not making it clear. > and that there now is an intent to add the headers over time, where > possible. No commitment is being made as to the timeframe or to what > percentage of the tests won't be able to have headers added without > breaking the tests. > > It is an unknown unknown how difficult it will prove... May be a good task to farm out to people who are interested in getting commit access or want to just get their feet wet. > If this is the case, then I'm personally comfortable with that plan > (others, of course are welcome and encouraged to chime in!). Perhaps > you might consider providing quarterly updates? For simplicity, this > could be folded in as brief comments in the board reports. I will see if we can roll it into the template we use in an easy fashion. This will apply not just to core but also to all our plugin releases. If/when > there is something substantial to discuss, it could be brought back > here. On that basis I read that we are OK to go ahead and continue making releases - with the proviso that we take an action item to try and cut the number of files down over time to the minimum. I still think the FAQ page needs to be updated to ack that there is the possibility of files not requiring a license header in the case where the file is test data *and* adding the header would invalidate the test... Feel free to state that these cases should be exceedingly rare... But the current wording does not allow for that possibility from my reading anyway - Stephen > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org > > -- Sent from my phone --001a11c2b1be8c05e104e0b49e05 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Connolly
<stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> = wrote:
>
> On 4 July 2013 14:29, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertw= ingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Stephen Connolly
>> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com= > wrote:
>> >
>> > FYI this issue would be good to get resolved quickly as we cu= rrently
>> > have a
>> > vote for the release of Maven 3.1.0 which is blocked pending = resolution
>> > of
>> > this question.
>>
>> Can you confirm that previous releases of Maven shipped with a
>> substantial portion of these very same tests in essentially their<= br> >> current state?

I don't see a direct answer to this question, but I believe I can
reasonably interpolate one from your answers.

[snip]

>
>The test cases were built up over
> quite some period of time and the expertise that developed a large chu= nk of
> these tests has effectively retired from the project (Benjamin Bentman= n)

[snip]

> Just because it is hard to identify
> if/how many tests require the absence of a header in order to ensure t= he
> defect they are designed to detect is resolved does not mean we should= never
> try.
>
> My preference is therefore that we add into the NOTICE some (to be
> determined text) that states that the test data is covered by the lice= nse
> but for historical reasons we are not comfortable adding the headers t= o
> these files at this point in time.
>
> My plan is to tighten the exemptions in the current RAT checks that we= use:
> https://github.com/apache/maven/com= mit/348f7164336e4c2209255daa2acdfcdfcaa8fa5e
> over the course of a number of releases.
>
> I suspect that we will always have some exceptions against our automat= ed
> checks and hence will always need some statement in the NOTICE file to= cover
> that (as I understand it)
>
> If the opinion is that we can leave the NOTICE file as is... well woop= ity
> doo!
>
> Less to do for now, other than over time start removing some of the > exceptions in our RAT checks.

My read is that these tests were indeed publicly released previously,

Correct. Sorry my bad for not making it clear.
=A0
and that there now is an intent to add the headers over time, where
possible. =A0No commitment is being made as to the timeframe or to what
percentage of the tests won't be able to have headers added without
breaking the tests.


It is an unknown unknown how difficult= it will prove... May be a good task to farm out to people who are interest= ed in getting commit access or want to just get their feet wet.
=A0
If this is the case, then I'm personally comfortable with that plan
(others, of course are welcome and encouraged to chime in!). =A0Perhaps
you might consider providing quarterly updates? =A0For simplicity, this
could be folded in as brief comments in the board reports. =A0
=

I will see = if we can roll it into the template we use in an easy fashion. This will ap= ply not just to core but also to all our plugin releases.

If/when
there is something substantial to discuss, it could be brought back
here.

On that basis I read that we are OK t= o go ahead and continue making releases - with the proviso that we take an = action item to try and cut the number of files down over time to the minimu= m.

I still think the FAQ page needs to be updated to ack t= hat there is the possibility of files not requiring a license header in the= case where the file is test data *and* adding the header would invalidate = the test... Feel free to state that these cases should be exceedingly rare.= .. But the current wording does not allow for that possibility from my read= ing anyway

- Stephen=A0

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-u= nsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss= -help@apache.org



--
Sent from my phone
--001a11c2b1be8c05e104e0b49e05--