zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Question about license
Date Sat, 15 Apr 2017 00:32:52 GMT
Looks like the Doxyfiles were deliberately excluded from the release audit
target, that is why we did not catch it. It's done back in 2010 in commit
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commit/f6264c94795a489309c23054451d1bf9078e7a68#diff-2cccd7bf48b7a9cc113ff564acd802a8.
And the exclude list stays pretty much the same over the years.

Do we need to do something about this for this release? I think probably we
don't so we can be consistent with previous releases <grin>.

Do we need to do something in long term about these files? Maybe, and if we
do I think these files should be taken out of the exclude list so they can
be checked at release audit time.


On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:

> Hm. Looks like this came in well after we started using doxygen. Background
> is here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
>
> I believe what they mean is that all of the comments - "comment lines" iiuc
> - in the file need to be removed and just keep the variable definition
> lines.
>
> Seems easy enough to do. If you do it please be sure to do it for all of
> them:
> ./src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> ./src/contrib/zkfuse/src/doxygen.cfg
> ./src/recipes/lock/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> ./src/recipes/queue/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
>
> Patrick
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think this is a question more for Pat Hunt. When going over the RAT
> > report for the 3.5.3 RC, I noticed a bunch of doxygen-related files that
> > have been there for quite some as they don't have the Apache License
> > header. What actually called my attention is this observation in the
> legal
> > FAQ:
> >
> > CAN WE USE DOXYGEN-GENERATED CONFIG FILES?
> > As long as the generated comments are removed from the Doxygen-generated
> > files, these files may be used.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what comments this is referring to. Does Pat or
> > anyone else remember if we have done a license sanity check on those
> files?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Flavio
>



-- 
Cheers
Michael.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message