Looking back over this, in preparation of doing some more work on this. Comments/questions inlined:
> - Unusual CHANGES file: I usually see people adding issue numbers our of > Jira The Wave Jira is fairly incomplete wrt. actual changes that have occurred. (I would estimate about half of the changes have Jira tickets, all recent ones have review board numbers, but early commits have neither). As such, I saw it mentioned in the Common's guide that the use of an 'svn log' instead was not strange. What do you suggest doing with this instead? > - Example NOTICE file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt, Ok. I shall rewrite this to be in that style. > Mockito is not mentioned with link as the others Will be added. :) > - server-config.xml, jsongadgets.json, jaas.config no license. Maybe others > too? Please utilize: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ it's a great tool to > check our licenses Rat looks useful. I will add a note to the release page and on the wiki, but I think it will be easiest to run standalone ATM. (Perhaps it can be made part of the mavenized process though). > - request_codereview wrong license (Google Inc)? I am not even sure why this file hasn't been deleted yet. It was only used for the old Google code reviews, and doesn't work with review-board. (And has no reason to be made to work with it). I will remove this file. > - files in /spec - allowed to distribute? No License given, where do these > files come from? These files are the whitepapers behind the conversation and federation protocols that Google wrote. Should I just add the license header to them and leave them where they are? > - src folder: we usually use org.apache prefix. Not seen any classes with > that Heh. You are correct that the org.apache prefix is not used at-all. The majority of the code lives under the org.waveprotocol namespace (for legacy reasons). Changing to use org.apache is a fairly major undertaking, and would serve little purpose if the next release is going to be mavenized (with the full codebase relocation that brings). > - thirdparty: allowed to distribute? Check with compatible licenses. Full > list whats working what not is here: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a My understanding from the work Angus did is that these are all under licenses allowing distribution. We have an ant task (ant get-third-party) for the few we are not allowed to distribute. > - Wave Logo (/war) seems to miss TM symbol. Please check: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html I assume you are referring to war/static/logo.png. Notably this is a different image to the logo used on the incubator website. (Which also lacks a TM). Which of these should be used? Should they both have a trademark? > - Whats the meaning of wave-0.4-release folder? A good question. I don't remember seeing that before, but it definitely shouldn't be there. :P (It appears my branch folder wasn't quite as clean as I thought). > - Whats the meaning of whitepapers folder? This holds the rest of the whitepapers, but these are older than the ones in spec/, and are no-longer fully up-to-date wrt. the code. Though still often contain useful information explaining why something has been done in the way that it has. Should I just add the license header and leave them there? Alternatively, perhaps spec/ and whitepapers/ would be better licensed and moved into doc/? Ali
