On 6/8/12 8:28 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> I've removed all the jars from the source. I just updated the older Apache
> copyright headers to Apache v2 copyright headers.
That seems right to me. Batik and Velocity might be grandfathered, but our
fork is definitely releasing after 2006 as described in [1]
>
> 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?
I'm pretty sure answer is no. This is third-party works as covered in [1].
We don't have to make RAT run clean, whatever it does find must be clearly
in Category A or B. I wish RAT had some filter for that, and maybe I will
put one together if I find time.
> 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?
I think we copy the NOTICE files into the top-level. In the source distro
before you build, there are no JARs, right?
>
> There are also README and some other text files and Java manifest files
> without copyrights. Are those exceptions?
If we can put Apache headers in without breaking something, we probably
should.
> 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
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
