On 31/03/2009, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <shanti.subraman...@sun.com> wrote: > > > Craig L Russell wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have > > updated > > > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE > > files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the > > > > correct headers. > > > > > > > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: > > > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit > > > > > > > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing > > > > copyright headers. > > > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location > > in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun > > copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the > > Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not > > lost. > > > > > > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of > > file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!-- > > format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. > > > > > > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be > > noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. > > > > > > > > Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all > > source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other > > copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party > > plugins which according to > > http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be > > left where they are - so I didn't touch them. > > > See my other mail - I don't think they should be in SVN. > > > > However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code > and > > we can't insert any notices in them. > > > RAT takes note of some generated files - not sure exactly what it > looks for, but if you can add the necessary line to the file - or even > a line that tells humans it is generate - that would be good. > > > > I assume this is acceptable. We have > > binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no > > notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. > > > > For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in > > the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). >
There also appears to be a compile & runtime dependency on Faban, which is CDDL. This needs to be documented in the README and N&L files. > Does the 3rd party source really need to be in SVN? > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > Shanti > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
