Hello Curt
Am Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:45 -0600
schrieb Curt Arnold <[email protected]>:
> Running "mvn rat:check" generates a RAT (release audit tool) report
> in target/rat.txt. The check fails since all the .php files in src/
> examples/php and src/examples/resources do not have ASF Source
> Header. src/examples/README.LICENSE explains a rationale, however
> unless there has already been some determination on this, I would
> raise this as an issue on the IPMC vote and think there is likely
> that the IPMC would push back on the issue.
There is some thing relevant on this page:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
What files in an Apache release do not require a license
header?
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.
I mean, thinking about it, we should "claim rights" on a php script that
does not do more than logging "hello world".
(And if it need that level of creativity for even the simplest usage of
our library we should certainly rethink our API *g*)
Not only that, by using it as an example, we encourage the user to
incorporate this snippet in his own source code which legally means
that we were then partially owner of the copyright of *his* source code!
(And not only copyright owner of a separated library as we are now)
> The examples are used with the @example phpdoc directive, so any ASF
> header in the example body would be incorporated literally into the
> generated documentation (as far as I can tell). So pointing the
> phpdoc at the .php snippets with ASF license headers would not
> generate pretty output. You could however point phpdoc at a
> directory (target/examples) that was generated from the source
> removing the ASF license using xslt or other processor. I can take a
> shot at that.
Maybe we can just rename them from .php to .snippet to make RAT happy?
Else, if you have the time for it, that would indeed be great. If not I
would risk bringing this issue up on the IPMC and if it gets rejected
just cut & paste into the phpdoc as well as into the .apt files.
The API is rock solid and with the low development on log4j will
probably stay that way anytime soon and if we have 1-2 bugs in the
examples than let it be that way and users can file a bug for it.
> Since the generated docs could depend on the version of phpdoc
> installed, I think it would be good to disclose the environment that
> is used to build the release packages. Ideally a clean fresh
> installed OS on an VM with just the minimum installed packages.
I'm not sure how you mean that (writing the version numbers to a
README or Wiki or somehow specifying it in maven?) but Christian G.
seems already to have a plan :)
bye,
-christian-
