I think you are on track here. It is understood that there is a lot to do to make an Apache release.
What would be helpful would be to discuss these patches/forks with each project to find out if there is interest. Who knows there may be some synergies found. Regards, Dave On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > 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 >
