Because each source file needs the license, not the binary. An Apache release is first and foremost a release of the source code, so if there are any files in the source tree that *don't* have the license header, it'll raise questions.
A. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>wrote: > why would we need to justify lines of code inside scriptbuilder? that > collapses the header into one? Is there a rule that says we need headers > randomly placed inside files templating systems generate? > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be > > prepared for that. > > > > A. > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Ignasi, > > > > > > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip > > > comments inside scriptbuilder. > > > > > > -A > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I > understand > > > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to > > > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the > > > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with > > > > the license headers at random parts. > > > > > > > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and > > > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of > something > > > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated. > > > > > > > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like > > > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments. > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > cool. thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer < > > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with > > > scriptbuilder > > > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me > > > > being as > > > > >> far as we go. > > > > >> > > > > >> A. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole < > > [email protected] > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual > > > > explanations :) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking > > > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. > I'm > > > > going > > > > >> to > > > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd > > have > > > to > > > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script > > > > fragments) > > > > >> in > > > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -A > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer < > > > [email protected] > > > > >> > >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to > > meet > > > > RAT > > > > >> > > checks. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > A. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole < > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > Hi, all. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > per > > > > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which > > > generates > > > > >> > shell > > > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license > > headers > > > > in > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > past > > > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the > > > > resulting > > > > >> > > shell > > > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers > > > > inlined. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot); > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license > > > > headers > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, > but > > > also > > > > >> that > > > > >> > > it > > > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, > if > > > we > > > > >> added > > > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, > everything > > > > that > > > > >> > uses > > > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd > have > > to > > > > >> write > > > > >> > > code > > > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 > > > > instance > > > > >> > > data, > > > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, > > > such > > > > as > > > > >> > > shell > > > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > -A > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable > > > requires a > > > > >> > > > license header. > > > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely: > > > > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might > > > agree > > > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above > > > > exception, > > > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC > > > members) > > > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so > you > > > (or > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses > > > > headers > > > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a > > > short > > > > >> form > > > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment > > lines > > > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look > > at > > > > that > > > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file. > > > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > --David > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
