I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to punt on this one. I don't want to call out another apache project on general@, so I think we need to wait and see if Bertrand has any input on it. I know he's out of pocket right now so we might just have to wait till he gets back.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > As you know I just forked Batik 1.6 and Velocity 1.4 to incorporate our > changes. > > Both of these projects seem to violate current Apache rules. While we are > using older versions, the current releases of each (both 1.7) seem to have > some of the same issues. > > I've removed all the jars from the source. I just updated the older Apache > copyright headers to Apache v2 copyright headers. > > That leaves me with a bunch of files which are still being flagged by RAT. > > In the batik project there are a bunch of .java, .mod (SVG Text Module) and > .dtd files which have the following copyrights: > Copyright 2001, 2002 World Wide Web Consortium or > Copyright 2001, 2002 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. > > In the batik NOTICE file I see this: > > This software contains code from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for the > Document Object Model API (DOM API) and SVG Document Type Definition (DTD). > > Should I remove all the copyrights in the files and replace them with Apache > v2 licenses? Do I pull the contents of the batik and velocity NOTICE files > up to the Flex top-level NOTICE file or is it enough to put the NOTICE file > for each jar next to it with the appropriate name for the jar? > > There are also README and some other text files and Java manifest files > without copyrights. Are those exceptions? If so, I wonder why RAT doesn't > know the .mf file type. I know that there is suppose to be a LICENSE and a > NOTICE file in the META-INF directory of each jar. > > Carol
