In the FAQ I see this: "A file without any degree of creativity in
either its literal elements or its structure is not protected by
copyright law; therefore, such a file does not require a license header.
If in doubt about the extent of the file's creativity, add the license
header to the file."
Here's the breakdown that I see from Rat:
None of the build scripts contain license headers. Given that the build
scripts are everyday, normal maven build scripts, I do believe they
qualify under the "a file without any degree of creativity" clause.
? adapters/pom.xml
? client/pom.xml
? core/pom.xml
? examples/pom.xml
? extensions/pom.xml
? extensions/gdata/pom.xml
? extensions/geo/pom.xml
? extensions/html/pom.xml
? extensions/json/pom.xml
? extensions/main/pom.xml
? extensions/media/pom.xml
? extensions/oauth/pom.xml
? extensions/opensearch/pom.xml
? extensions/serializer/pom.xml
? extensions/sharing/pom.xml
? extensions/wsse/pom.xml
? parser/pom.xml
? security/pom.xml
? server/pom.xml
? spring/pom.xml
? dependencies/deps.properties
The following file used to provide localization strings may possibly
require a license header.
? core/src/main/resources/abderamessages.properties
The following are configuration files used at runtime, the majority of
which consist of only a few lines of text and also fall under the above
quoted clause.
? client/src/main/java/log4j.properties
? core/src/main/resources/abdera.properties.example
?
core/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory.example
?
core/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
core/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.converter.ConverterProvider
?
examples/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.writer.NamedWriter
?
extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.parser.NamedParser
?
extensions/html/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.parser.NamedParser
?
extensions/json/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.writer.NamedWriter
!?????
extensions/main/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
extensions/media/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
extensions/opensearch/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
extensions/sharing/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
?
parser/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.writer.NamedWriter
?
contrib/rss/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.abdera.factory.ExtensionFactory
The following simple files are used for example purposes and do not
contain any creative content whatsoever.
? examples/src/main/resources/xmlcontent.xml
? examples/src/main/resources/log4j.properties
? examples/src/main/resources/simple.xml
? examples/src/main/resources/test.xslt
? examples/src/main/resources/content.xslt
? examples/src/main/resources/org/apache/abdera/examples/appserver/web.xml
The following were also (inappropriately) flagged by RAT
? extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/LICENSE.htmlparser.txt
? extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/NOTICE.htmlparser.txt
? extensions/complete/resources/META-INF/NOTICE.serializer.txt
? extensions/json/src/main/resources/META-INF/LICENSE.htmlparser.txt
? extensions/json/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE.htmlparser.txt
? extensions/json/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE.serializer.txt
? dependencies/legal/servlet-api-LICENSE.txt
? dependencies/legal/htmlparser-LICENSE.txt
The following resources are test resources that in addition to not
containing any degree of creative content, they arguably should not
contain license headers because the presence of the license header could
potentially impact the results of the tests.
? adapters/hibernate/src/test/resources/abdera/adapter/hibernate.cfg.xml
? adapters/hibernate/src/test/resources/abdera/adapter/DummyData.hbm.xml
? extensions/opensearch/src/test/resources/opensearch.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/nondefaultnamespace.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/nondefaultnamespace3.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/nondefaultnamespace2.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/xmlbase.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/ordertest.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/linktests.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/www.snellspace.com/public/contentsummary.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/simpleFeed.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/xmlcontent.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/feed.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/simple.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.feedparser.org/tests/wellformed/atom10/entry_content_base64_2.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.feedparser.org/tests/wellformed/atom10/entry_content_base64.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.feedparser.org/tests/wellformed/atom10/entry_author_email.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.feedparser.org/tests/wellformed/atom10/entry_author_name.xml
?
parser/src/test/resources/www.feedparser.org/tests/wellformed/atom10/atom10_namespace.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/complete.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/simpleService.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/simpleEntry.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/test.xslt
? parser/src/test/resources/entry.xml
? parser/src/test/resources/content.xslt
? spring/src/test/resources/org/apache/abdera/spring/beans.xml
? contrib/rss/src/test/resources/rss1.rdf
?
adapters/hibernate/src/test/resources/abdera/adapter/hibernate.properties
? security/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
? server/src/test/resources/abdera/adapter/sample.properties
This one documentation file, which contains only a single one sentence
statement, does not contain a license header.
? docs/knownissues.txt
Which of these files do you think we absolutely have to add license
headers to?
- James
sebb wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> On 31/03/2008, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>
-1: There are MD5 and SHA1 digests in the directory, but the archives
> have no signatures.
>
>
OK, I will fix this.
Maven Repository: http://people.apache.org/~dandiep/abdera-take6/
>>
>>
>
> -0: The abdera-bundle-0.4.0-incubating-sources.jar does not appear to
> have any content - only the META-INF directory is present. Is that
> correct?
>
This is just a by-product of Maven. We can delete it.
-1: The NOTICE files in that jar (and others) contains far too much.
> The NOTICE file is for required attribtions ONLY (e.g. as per an About box)
> There's really no need to repeat ASF for each project used by Abdera.
>
Having too much information in the NOTICE files is not a crime. The
Maven remote-resources plugin aggregates all this stuff for us so we
never miss any notice that we need to put in.
Unfortunately the plugin generates incorrect information.
It *is* a problem having all the redundant information.
See for example:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
also
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss
-1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party
> licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences.
> Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of
> the AL for every ASF product.
>
Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other licenses?
These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF projects.
See the last paragraph of:
http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
Re: the ASL license in lib/ - once again having too much information is
not a crime. This is a service to uesrs so they know where the libraries
came from.
I agree the source is useful, but the place for this is the LICENSE file.
-1: RAT report says:
>
> 99 Unknown Licenses
>
> Some of these are trivial, but most require an AL header.
>
Not true - there is not consensus that properties/xml files need to have
headers. All the Java source code files have headers. If there are
specific files that you feel should have a license that don't please
list them and explain why. I'm not saying that we didn't miss something,
but I am saying that the ones that I know about don't necessarily
require a header.
Yes, they do, see:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
What is the SVN tag that corresponds with the archives?
>
>
the branch will be tagged once its released.
Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
