Thanks for the feedback & advice. > 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 > <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
This is good to know! I’m +1 to removing the header from the config files. > I would also like to find out whether there is any similar leeway for our > docs in markdown format. > 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. > if we think of the markdown files as readable in themselves, then such a > publication should claim its copyright as actual text. > 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. I quite like the idea of having the license for the docs in one place, as opposed to each & every file. Dave’s suggestion is good too; strikes a balance between the two (short & readable, in every file). > 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. +1 - I’ll open an issue to track this. > 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. We should be able to do something similar. The pre-commit hook allows us to exclude files / patterns.
