On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Not only cosmetic:
> * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about > Lucene.NET at all. Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and > 2006-2011. > * LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java > and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ArrayUtil.java that certainly > don't exist while there are files with different names that the > corresponding license entry applies to. > * Quite a few files that could contain the ASF license don't. > I've run RAT[1] over the distribution archives and the results are > here <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/> > I dont think the .txt files need a license, but the .html, .cs, .xml > (at least the ones that are not generated), .config, .nunit and > .resources files can and should. One could even argue the .sln and > .c[ds]proj files should (the build.xml or pom.xml files of Java > projects also do). > * some snowball files need to get relicensed under Apache Software > License 2.0 (the are still at 1.1). These are so straight forward to fix that even I can do it ;-) Unless anybody yells I'll put some time aside today to create a patch that fixes the issues in trunk and should hopefully be easy to merge to the 2.9.2 tag/branch and will attach it to LOCENENET-381. Stefan
