Let's set the past aside for a moment. The last thing I want is to make this in any way personal. I have nothing but appreciation for everything you've all done for our project.
So what this comes down to is that we need to engineer our way out of the fact that Hop pipeline and workflow files (.hpl/.hwf) are both user and developer generated. We also have plans to move from XML to JSON (or other file formats) in the (near) future. I don't disagree with Justin on the fact that we want to express that the unit test files are part of an ASF body of work. There is the added problem of the fact that these very users and developers almost never look at the file content in XML format hiding the ASF header for all intents and purposes. So here is a proposal: would it be OK to add an extra "<copyright>" or "<license>" field in the contents of the XML (and later JSON, ...)? That way we can add a feature in the GUI to allow users to actually see and modify the ASF header content and it would also work for the other file formats we have in mind. Adding a feature to set the default ASF in the GUI would also be quite easy. This would then move from a problem to a worthy feature addition since this way Hop users can add their own copyright header to the pipeline and workflow files they create if they feel like they need to. Cheers, Matt On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:02 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Well Justin, these files are typically generated by our software. It > would > > not be OK to force the license into all files since that wouldn't be > > appropriate and right since we don't force Apache copyright on the work > of > > others. > > The ASF header doesn’t include a copyright line and the ALv2 license > doesn’t ask to transfer copyright so I’m not sure what you mean by the > above. If those files are in an ASF repo they they need to be (in general) > covered by a software grant, ICLA, CCLA etc or be 3rd party file with a > compatible license. What you say above suggests they are actually 3rd party > files, the work of others outside the project? If they are 3rd party files > then that should be made clear. [2] > > > Without that possibility we're down to manually editing the files > > every time they are created or modified in the slightest. I don't see > that > > as a valid option. > > I would assume whatever generates them can generate them with a header? > Are all of these files generated or not? > > > That evaluation was made before. Now it just feels like one more rule we > > have to deal with that just comes out of the blue. > > Can you please point me to this conversation on your mailing list as I was > unable to find it. I did find this [1] > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rdb61e0df4ac921dc3af3e71b7971a20e9222016d9c02244bccfb3892%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E > 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
