On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@sun.com> wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote: > > > > Craig L Russell wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have > updated > > > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE > files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the > > > > correct headers. > > > > > > > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit > > > > > > > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing > > > > copyright headers. > > > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original > location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already > the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by > the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's > not lost. > > > > > > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of > file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!-- > format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. > > > > > > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be > noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. > > > > > > > > Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all > source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other > copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party > plugins which according to > http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be > left where they are - so I didn't touch them. > > > > RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have > to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices. > > > > > However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code > and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. > > > > Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote > discussion of the RAT output. > > > > We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code > with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. > > > > The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look > at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix. > > > > > For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in > the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). > >
I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code. > Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file. > Craig > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > Shanti > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
