> On Mar 16, 2025, at 9:02 AM, henrikingo (via GitHub) <g...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> henrikingo commented on PR #37:
> URL: https://github.com/apache/otava/pull/37#issuecomment-2727517038
>
> Wow,thanks Sean. Cool that you also changed the name. This is a big step in
> completing the transition to ASF.
>
> Given the sweeping nature of this patch I would be inclined to merge it and
> I'm therefore +1 it herẹ. I have some comments, but IMO we can address those
> incrementally in follow up work.
>
> I like that checking for license headers is integrated to CI and just
> generally completely automated. Well done.
>
> +1
>
> ====
> Comments for discussion and we can work on this in the coming weeks:
>
> I feel like putting the ASF license header into config files is going a bit
> too far. IMO config files can typically be considered not creative work and
> therefore not copyrightable. TheASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy
> seems to recognize this in
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> Second, I would also like to find out whether there is any similar leeway
> for our docs in markdown format. Documentation of course is definately
> copyrightable. My aversion to the license headers added here is more that
> Markdown is designed to be readable as it is, without needing to compile it
> to HTML or anything else. Hence they are both source files and final files
> and it's a bit subjective which aspect of that you see first. For me they are
> readable files first.
A common method used in the ASF for the license in markdown is as a url in a
header reference like:
```
Title: My Title
license: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
# My Title
```
>
> It seems both "Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL
> files. The expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
> relate to." and "'Snippet' files that are included in a larger file, when the
> larger file would have duplicate licensing headers."
>
> At least if we were to build a single PDF or single HTML page that is
> distributed as our manual, then that would clearly fall into the snippet case.
>
> If we think of docs/*.md as a publication that is already in readable
> format, then I would say docs/ is the copyrightable work, and the files in
> the directory are snippets. As an example, the license header is 11 lines,
> and for example BIG_QUERY.md is 24, so the license header is almost 50% of
> the content it is protecting.
You can certainly use a header as above.
>
> Furthermore, if we think of the markdown files as readable in themselves,
> then such a publication should claim its copyright as actual text. Like it
> would on the data page of a book, for example. So we could have one instance
> of the ASF license header after the table of contents, or as a separate file,
> linked in the table of contents.
Are these docs being published to a website? Then people usually have copyright
and license references in the footer.html
If you look at using a license check like Apache RAT, an excludes file is used
to make the all source files that are “false negatives” for license compliance.
I don’t know if Poetry offers similar license check exclusions.
Best,
Dave
>
> Third, there are sentences in the text that say, for example, "hunts for
> performance regressions". It's IMO good that this patch doesn't go beyond the
> mechanical rename, but of course it makes sense to follow up with a more
> editorial PR.
>
>
> --
> This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
> To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
> URL above to go to the specific comment.
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@otava.apache.org
>
> For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
> us...@infra.apache.org
>
