I have run some tools over all of avalon cvs, save avalon-apps, to replace all @year@ strings with what I believe to be the proper copyright dates, and I believe I've eliminated all short license headers.
(I used regexps
/\*([^/]*)LICENSE.txt([^/]*)\*/ /\*([^/]*)LICENSE file([^/]*)\*/
....source of trouble the first time was having an old update script which contained
/\*(.*)LICENSE.txt(.*)\*/
which deleted everything up to and including the last comment in a file)
in all java files. I already modded the csframework files a week ago; so I think we're pretty much cleaned up wrt licenses now.
Actions I've taken in the last few weeks:
- removing all non-asf-produced jars from the cvs attic - removing all jars with a license not confirmed to be ok from cvs - update some of the build systems which do autodownload to ask about licensing before downloading jars (todo: phoenix, sandbox) - adding full license to files with no license (todo for someone else: confirm there are no files without license) - adding full license to files with the short license header (todo for someone else: confirm there are no files with the short header anymore) - making sure no license header contains '@year@' instead of a copyright date - adding licenses to subprojects that didn't have them (todo: do this everywhere), making sure they got included in the jar and distributions (todo: make sure this is done everywhere)
Below a summary of the information about licensing every committer and preferably every contributor should be aware of and follow. It may be inaccurate as I am not a lawyer. Do not take it as legal advice. You should read and digest http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing in addition to reading the below.
LICENSE HEADER
--------------
The Apache board has decreed that all apache projects need to include the full license in each and every sourcefile. This is because there exists some unclarity as to what the current license refers to; it is the understanding of smart peeps that it might be referring only to the "current file", ie the file it is included in. The apache 2.0 license in development will fix this, allowing including a short notice in the file header only.
You *need* to make sure every commit you make contains the full license.
LICENSE COPYRIGHT DATE ---------------------- Every license must have valid copyright date information. Valid samples are:
19997 1993-2004 1992,1993,1995,1999-2001
specifically invalid is
@year@
Everytime you edit a file, you need to make sure the copyright date information corresponds to the year you're making the edit in. For example, if you make a change to a file with copyright date information of
1997-2002
you need to change that date to
1997-2003
or
1997-2002,2003
If the file has copyright information of
2000
you should update it to read
2000,2003
LICENSE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
------------------------
All contributions made to the Apache Software Foundation are copyrighted by the Apache Software Foundation. Each and every file we distribute ideally has a copyright notice to this effect in it; this is most important for sourcefiles.
INCLUSION OF REDISTRIBUTABLES
-----------------------------
For every redistributable (for example qdox-1.1.jar) released under a different copyright and/or license, a license file should be included (for example qdox.LICENSE.html) in text or html format.
This is not just for binary distributions we make available; it is for CVS, too, as we provide access to cvs, and it is thus just another distribution channel.
ALLOWED LICENSES FOR REDISTRIBUTABLES
-------------------------------------
Clearly, we must not in anyway do something which is not allowed under anyone else's license.
As an official ASF and Avalon policy, we do not wish to link to or redistribute redistributables which impose additional restrictions on users besides the restrictions placed upon them by the ASL. IOW, all "viral" or "copyleft" license are not okay.
This means we should not link (ie we should not 'import org.gnu.gpledClass') to, nor redistribute, files released under any of the following licenses (probably not a full list):
GPL LGPL
Furthermore, we should not make binaries released under
Sun Binary Code License
independently available (ie they cannot be in CVS or anything like that), though they probably may be provided as part of a distribution.
Licenses which are okay as long as they are included next to the redistributales, and any additional requirements in the licenses is satisfied:
MPL BSD License IBMPL
similar license like the MIT License and the W3C License should be okay too, but this is even less sure.
LICENSE ON SOURCEFILES
----------------------
All sources we put into CVS should be under the ASL. There may be exceptions in the case of software grants or something similar, but this is something that needs to be checked and authorized by the PMC prior to a commit.
hope this clears some things up.
cheers,
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
