On Oct 13, 2007 4:28 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that we start down a slippery slope when we graduate projects which > are "not yet" compliant, but "will be". When? Craig points out that it has > been some months since the issue was raised by you, and it is still not > resolved. Hence:
Who said it wasn't compliant? It is [1] - and it was one of the first projects to be in compliance in general with the updated licensing requirements that Cliff drew up. Your objection is solely about running a tool (which isn't documented or linked to anywhere) to *prove* the compliance rather than looking through it yourself - and that has nothing to do with the state of the community and whether the podling should graduate. FWIW, I just ran RAT and stdcxx is fine. RAT is largely flagging the automated test suite files output as missing the licenses. These particular files are used as a comparison so it can't have the license text anyway or risk screwing up the tests. IMO, there's nothing here to warrant vetoing or tabling the graduation vote. As I said before, we can (and will) go through it with a fine-tooth comb before the release; but the state of the licensing notices is comparable with any other ASF project and graduation doesn't deserve to be held hostage to some unreasonable expectations. -- justin 1. Just see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stdcxx/trunk/src/strtol.cpp and others. --- Summary ------- Notes: 4 Binaries: 125 Archives: 0 Standards: 2818 Apache Licensed: 2676 Generated Documents: 0 JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not required license headers 142 Unknown Licenses --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
