incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:34:24 GMT

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:
>>> 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

>  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).

Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.

>> Craig
> Shanti
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message