Hi, > This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark > the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir > enough.
Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file would be clear and anyone editing those feel in the future is likely to know where they come from and how thy are licensed. Also make things a lot easier to review in the future. The issue with rat exclusions is that I find they tend to be made too wide and than at some point fail to capture something important. > and thus we ask folks to run rat as: > $ mvn verify I generally run rat manually without exclusions which is probably why I notice things a little more often. > if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something > like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that If that's how it is licensed then it should have an ALv2 licence header that’s ASF policy? The only issue I would have is if ALv2 headers are added to files that are not licensed in that way, so yes some care needs to be taken. Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
