Hi, On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org > wrote:
> Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Tulach > <jaroslav.tul...@oracle.com> wrote: > > ...When we did the Oracle review we managed to convince the reviewer > that certain > > files don't need a license.... > > The ASF equivalent of that is > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html which says "a file > without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its > structure" doesn't need a license header. > > I don't know if the form & manifest files fall in that category. > > > ...On the other hand, I believe, solving the ".form problem" is of little > > priority for the audit that we are doing.... > > I agree, as long as any exceptions such as this one are documented as > part of the NETBEANS-54 process. Either directly in that ticket or in > scripts of configurations files linked from it. > > The first incubating release doesn't have to be perfect, but questions > such as "why don't those files have license headers" are best answered > by pointing to a permanent URL that has the explanation. Not having > that usually means having to re-explain things N times ;-) > For forms, I guess we could (at some point): -change the form editor to preserve leading comments -manually add the headers to the form files -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header manually for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome). (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header on each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.) Jan > > -Bertrand >
