Berin Lautenbach wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > > Thanks Norm, i have applied the suggested changes to the > > resolver side of things. Waiting on the PMC for the other > > issues (4.5 down, 13.5 to go). > > Whoops. I've missed something here - many apologies! > > Could you re-post the issues in question?
Sure, see below. As per yesterday's message, the "resolver" issues are fixed. I am not sure whether to keep copying the PMC or just deal with it on commons-dev (because all XML project folks should be there anyway). --David -----Original Message----- Sender: David Crossley To: commons-dev<AT>xml.apache.org, pmc<AT>xml.apache.org Subject: some issues with docs: license review Date: 07 Jul 2003 17:39:52 +1000 While trying to build the XML Commons website, i am running into quite a lot of issues. Licenses is one issue. I was first attracted by some tricky copyright bits in the Resolver documentation, but ended up finding some discrepancies elsewhere too. I Cc the PMC so that they can help to ensure that all is ship-shape. Here is a summary of the state of the CVS. I have listed everything that i could find. Some are okay, some need attention. ------------------------------------------------------- 1) xml-commons/LICENSE.txt ---------- * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 * * Copyright (c) 2001-2002 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights * reserved. ... ---------- I just updated that to say 2001-2003 ------------------------------------------------------- 2) xml-commons/README.txt ---------- This notes that there are a number of different licenses for the files under xml-commons/java/external (except for a couple of specific files) and goes on to say that the catchall licence is that from 1). Sounds okay to me, but IANAL. ------------------------------------------------------- 3) xml-commons/src/documentation/content/xdocs/licenses.xml ---------- This is a combination of 1) and 2) and will get rendered as the webpage commons/licenses.html ------------------------------------------------------- 4) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/LICENSE ---------- * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 * * * Copyright (c) 2001 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights * reserved. ... ---------- This has different text to 1) and a different way to define "year" (which is still 2001). It refers to "Xalan" rather than "Apache" and additionally refers to IBM. I wonder if that is a relic from copying another license. This license also conflicts with a statement from 2). I suggest that this gets replaced by 1) unless there is a reason for the differences. ------------------------------------------------------- 5) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/env/Which*.java ---------- These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". ------------------------------------------------------- 6) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/*.java These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". A couple of files say "Lotus" instead of IBM. If 4) is replaced by 1) then these headers would change too. ------------------------------------------------------- 7) xml-commons/java/tests/resolver/src/*.java ---------- These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". ------------------------------------------------------- 8) xml-commons/java/docs/resolver.xml ---------- The entity resolver article has had many lives. Now there is this version at xml-commons. The document has the following explicit copyright statements, which will get rendered when Forrest generates the HTML documentation. ---------- Copyright © 2001, 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc. Copyright © 2000 Arbortext, Inc. ---------- Do we just add "2003 ASF" as an additional holder? Forrest will also automatically add this to the bottom of the page footer ... ---------- Copyright © 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. ---------- I presume that that sits okay with the abovementioned explicit statements for past years Also this Resolver article links to a copyright.html which does not exist. Should this link to the licence at 5) ? ------------------------------------------------------- 9) xml-commons/java/docs/release-notes.xml ---------- The resolver release notes have the copyright holder as Sun. Perhaps this should be only ASF because the notes cover the xml-commons release of Resolver. ------------------------------------------------------- 10) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/transform/* ---------- These have embedded license as per 1) They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001, some have been. A couple of files an additional bit tacked on the end which refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001. ------------------------------------------------------- 11) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/* ---------- These have embedded license as per 1) All files have an additional bit tacked on the end which refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001. They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001, some have been. ------------------------------------------------------- 12) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/apache/* ---------- The only stuff in here is xmlcommons/Version.* These have the "Lotus" variation of 4) They have not been edited since 2001. ------------------------------------------------------- 13) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.dom-*.txt ---------- Very liberal licence by W3C. I cannot see any conflicts. ------------------------------------------------------- 14) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/w3c/dom/* ---------- These all have a short W3C license header. Seems okay. Still says "2000". Some files have been edited in 2002. ------------------------------------------------------- 15) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/dom/* ---------- There are various "copyright" documents here which i have not yet explored. ------------------------------------------------------- 16) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.sax.txt ---------- This makes very explicit statements that everything is released into the Public Domain. However, there is a bit of confusing additional comments here about the document being out-of-date. ------------------------------------------------------- 17) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/xml/sax/* ---------- Most files simply say ... // No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will. Some simply say ... // NO WARRANTY! This class is in the Public Domain. ------------------------------------------------------- 18) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/sax/* ---------- Each document has a simple statement ... "This document is in the Public Domain." ------------------------------------------------------- 19) xml-commons/java/src/manifest.which and xml-commons/java/external/src/manifest.commons ---------- Both say that they are created by Sun Microsystems, - seems a little strange. Or does it mean that the manifest file format is created by them. ------------------------------------------------------- 20) All java code has got a licence header. ---------- Yes, all java files are complete. ------------------------------------------------------- 21) Up-to-date "year" on copyright statements ---------- Does each file's copyright statement need to be updated if that file has been modified? ------------------------------------------------------------Forwarded Message----- From: David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: some issues with docs: license review Date: 07 Jul 2003 17:39:52 +1000 While trying to build the XML Commons website, i am running into quite a lot of issues. Licenses is one issue. I was first attracted by some tricky copyright bits in the Resolver documentation, but ended up finding some discrepancies elsewhere too. I Cc the PMC so that they can help to ensure that all is ship-shape. Here is a summary of the state of the CVS. I have listed everything that i could find. Some are okay, some need attention. ------------------------------------------------------- 1) xml-commons/LICENSE.txt ---------- * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 * * Copyright (c) 2001-2002 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights * reserved. ... ---------- I just updated that to say 2001-2003 ------------------------------------------------------- 2) xml-commons/README.txt ---------- This notes that there are a number of different licenses for the files under xml-commons/java/external (except for a couple of specific files) and goes on to say that the catchall licence is that from 1). Sounds okay to me, but IANAL. ------------------------------------------------------- 3) xml-commons/src/documentation/content/xdocs/licenses.xml ---------- This is a combination of 1) and 2) and will get rendered as the webpage commons/licenses.html ------------------------------------------------------- 4) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/LICENSE ---------- * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 * * * Copyright (c) 2001 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights * reserved. ... ---------- This has different text to 1) and a different way to define "year" (which is still 2001). It refers to "Xalan" rather than "Apache" and additionally refers to IBM. I wonder if that is a relic from copying another license. This license also conflicts with a statement from 2). I suggest that this gets replaced by 1) unless there is a reason for the differences. ------------------------------------------------------- 5) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/env/Which*.java ---------- These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". ------------------------------------------------------- 6) xml-commons/java/src/org/apache/xml/resolver/*.java These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". A couple of files say "Lotus" instead of IBM. If 4) is replaced by 1) then these headers would change too. ------------------------------------------------------- 7) xml-commons/java/tests/resolver/src/*.java ---------- These have embedded license as per 4) i.e. they mention Xalan and IBM and still say "2001". ------------------------------------------------------- 8) xml-commons/java/docs/resolver.xml ---------- The entity resolver article has had many lives. Now there is this version at xml-commons. The document has the following explicit copyright statements, which will get rendered when Forrest generates the HTML documentation. ---------- Copyright © 2001, 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc. Copyright © 2000 Arbortext, Inc. ---------- Do we just add "2003 ASF" as an additional holder? Forrest will also automatically add this to the bottom of the page footer ... ---------- Copyright © 2003 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. ---------- I presume that that sits okay with the abovementioned explicit statements for past years Also this Resolver article links to a copyright.html which does not exist. Should this link to the licence at 5) ? ------------------------------------------------------- 9) xml-commons/java/docs/release-notes.xml ---------- The resolver release notes have the copyright holder as Sun. Perhaps this should be only ASF because the notes cover the xml-commons release of Resolver. ------------------------------------------------------- 10) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/transform/* ---------- These have embedded license as per 1) They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001, some have been. A couple of files an additional bit tacked on the end which refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001. ------------------------------------------------------- 11) xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/* ---------- These have embedded license as per 1) All files have an additional bit tacked on the end which refers to prior work by Sun 1999-2001. They still say "2001". Some files have not been edited since 2001, some have been. ------------------------------------------------------- 12) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/apache/* ---------- The only stuff in here is xmlcommons/Version.* These have the "Lotus" variation of 4) They have not been edited since 2001. ------------------------------------------------------- 13) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.dom-*.txt ---------- Very liberal licence by W3C. I cannot see any conflicts. ------------------------------------------------------- 14) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/w3c/dom/* ---------- These all have a short W3C license header. Seems okay. Still says "2000". Some files have been edited in 2002. ------------------------------------------------------- 15) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/dom/* ---------- There are various "copyright" documents here which i have not yet explored. ------------------------------------------------------- 16) xml-commons/java/external/LICENSE.sax.txt ---------- This makes very explicit statements that everything is released into the Public Domain. However, there is a bit of confusing additional comments here about the document being out-of-date. ------------------------------------------------------- 17) xml-commons/java/external/src/org/xml/sax/* ---------- Most files simply say ... // No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will. Some simply say ... // NO WARRANTY! This class is in the Public Domain. ------------------------------------------------------- 18) xml-commons/java/external/xdocs/sax/* ---------- Each document has a simple statement ... "This document is in the Public Domain." ------------------------------------------------------- 19) xml-commons/java/src/manifest.which and xml-commons/java/external/src/manifest.commons ---------- Both say that they are created by Sun Microsystems, - seems a little strange. Or does it mean that the manifest file format is created by them. ------------------------------------------------------- 20) All java code has got a licence header. ---------- Yes, all java files are complete. ------------------------------------------------------- 21) Up-to-date "year" on copyright statements ---------- Does each file's copyright statement need to be updated if that file has been modified? -------------------------------------------------------
