You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Felix Knecht <fe...@felixknecht.ch> on 2010/05/18 07:17:09 UTC

License Header for ldif needed?

Most of the ldif files do not have a license header
(ldap-schema/src/main/resources/schema/*). Do they need to have a
license header or can they be considered as false positives of the RAT
report [1]?

Felix

[1] http://people.apache.org/~felixk/shared-docs/rat-report.html

Re: License Header for ldif needed?

Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/18/10 10:47, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 5/18/10 7:17 AM, Felix Knecht wrote:
>> Most of the ldif files do not have a license header
>> (ldap-schema/src/main/resources/schema/*). Do they need to have a
>> license header or can they be considered as false positives of the RAT
>> report [1]?
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~felixk/shared-docs/rat-report.html
>>
>>    
> I don't think it's required. The ASF policy is quite clear about the
> fact that any source file should (read : must) include the ASL License
> Header, but :
> 
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> 
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements
> or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a
> file does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of
> the file's creativity, add the license header to the file."
> 
> There is no creativity in those LDIF files, they are either generated
> from OpenLDAP schema files through a generator or a direct extraction
> from Studio. (IMO)
> 
> Do you guys agree ?

+1, thanks for pointing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvyWR4ACgkQ2lZVCB08qHEv5ACgvaJzx256mVraJted9Nu5O6fe
ybAAoOpIej3uLZt5vY87qricbPwOrsPG
=tTKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: License Header for ldif needed?

Posted by Kiran Ayyagari <ka...@apache.org>.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/10 7:17 AM, Felix Knecht wrote:
>>
>> Most of the ldif files do not have a license header
>> (ldap-schema/src/main/resources/schema/*). Do they need to have a
>> license header or can they be considered as false positives of the RAT
>> report [1]?
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~felixk/shared-docs/rat-report.html
>>
>>
>
> I don't think it's required. The ASF policy is quite clear about the fact
> that any source file should (read : must) include the ASL License Header,
> but :
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
> its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does
> not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the file's
> creativity, add the license header to the file."
>
> There is no creativity in those LDIF files, they are either generated from
> OpenLDAP schema files through a generator or a direct extraction from
> Studio. (IMO)
>
> Do you guys agree ?

yeap (all those files were generated and am still generating some more ;)

Kiran Ayyagari

Re: License Header for ldif needed?

Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/10 7:17 AM, Felix Knecht wrote:
> Most of the ldif files do not have a license header
> (ldap-schema/src/main/resources/schema/*). Do they need to have a
> license header or can they be considered as false positives of the RAT
> report [1]?
>
> Felix
>
> [1] http://people.apache.org/~felixk/shared-docs/rat-report.html
>
>    
I don't think it's required. The ASF policy is quite clear about the 
fact that any source file should (read : must) include the ASL License 
Header, but :

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

"A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements 
or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a 
file does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of 
the file's creativity, add the license header to the file."

There is no creativity in those LDIF files, they are either generated 
from OpenLDAP schema files through a generator or a direct extraction 
from Studio. (IMO)

Do you guys agree ?

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com