This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over at F5 Dev Central in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and the original code are identical - they've only added the copyright statements and optional GPL, so I've reached out to Jacob and asked if he's willing to release it under Apache.
Waiting for his reply. -Arve -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Cole [mailto:fernc...@gmail.com] Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57 To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code? +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the opportunity +to rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts. Code written more than several months prior can often be written better anyway (one hopes their skills age well :P). Particularly, unit tests are a welcome great improvement whenever there's code to be "rewritten". I'd go so far as to say code without unit tests are often time bombs that should be rewritten anyway. -A On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to > > "re-write" a section of code? > > There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be considered > separately. This was the closest I could find in the archives: > http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code > > > > > Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found during > > license header changes (and is considered a release blocker bug [2]). > > The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering what > > it would take to correctly write a replacement class file. My > > assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work (and > > even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in the file). > > I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right. > > In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen examples > doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have someone > reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they haven't seen > the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is probably a good > opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed. > > In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright holder if > they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a piece of code to > include here. > > Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the authors > and that code here is intentionally contributed. > > HTH, > Brett > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > http://twitter.com/brettporter > > > > > >
