On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" <shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark >>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could >>>look weir enough. >> >> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? > >For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable >changes >to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as >well fit in that >category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid >modifying the headers. Did the code owners (original authors of these files) actually sign an SGA to donate these files to Apache? If not, these files are technically not part of a code donation and should be treated as you would any 3rd party code. AIUI, you can't grant code you don't own, even if it was accidentally included in an SGA. -Alex
