You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zookeeper.apache.org by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> on 2017/04/14 22:39:43 UTC
Question about license
I think this is a question more for Pat Hunt. When going over the RAT report for the 3.5.3 RC, I noticed a bunch of doxygen-related files that have been there for quite some as they don't have the Apache License header. What actually called my attention is this observation in the legal FAQ:
CAN WE USE DOXYGEN-GENERATED CONFIG FILES?
As long as the generated comments are removed from the Doxygen-generated files, these files may be used.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
I'm not entirely sure what comments this is referring to. Does Pat or anyone else remember if we have done a license sanity check on those files?
Thanks,
-Flavio
Re: Question about license
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Seems to me that we should address these in the next release of 3.4/3.5.
Simple enough to do to some into compliance.
Patrick
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Michael Han <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Looks like the Doxyfiles were deliberately excluded from the release audit
> target, that is why we did not catch it. It's done back in 2010 in commit
> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commit/f6264c94795a489309c23054451d1b
> f9078e7a68#diff-2cccd7bf48b7a9cc113ff564acd802a8.
> And the exclude list stays pretty much the same over the years.
>
> Do we need to do something about this for this release? I think probably we
> don't so we can be consistent with previous releases <grin>.
>
> Do we need to do something in long term about these files? Maybe, and if we
> do I think these files should be taken out of the exclude list so they can
> be checked at release audit time.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hm. Looks like this came in well after we started using doxygen.
> Background
> > is here:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> >
> > I believe what they mean is that all of the comments - "comment lines"
> iiuc
> > - in the file need to be removed and just keep the variable definition
> > lines.
> >
> > Seems easy enough to do. If you do it please be sure to do it for all of
> > them:
> > ./src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> > ./src/contrib/zkfuse/src/doxygen.cfg
> > ./src/recipes/lock/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> > ./src/recipes/queue/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a question more for Pat Hunt. When going over the RAT
> > > report for the 3.5.3 RC, I noticed a bunch of doxygen-related files
> that
> > > have been there for quite some as they don't have the Apache License
> > > header. What actually called my attention is this observation in the
> > legal
> > > FAQ:
> > >
> > > CAN WE USE DOXYGEN-GENERATED CONFIG FILES?
> > > As long as the generated comments are removed from the
> Doxygen-generated
> > > files, these files may be used.
> > >
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely sure what comments this is referring to. Does Pat or
> > > anyone else remember if we have done a license sanity check on those
> > files?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Flavio
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Michael.
>
Re: Question about license
Posted by Michael Han <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Looks like the Doxyfiles were deliberately excluded from the release audit
target, that is why we did not catch it. It's done back in 2010 in commit
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commit/f6264c94795a489309c23054451d1bf9078e7a68#diff-2cccd7bf48b7a9cc113ff564acd802a8.
And the exclude list stays pretty much the same over the years.
Do we need to do something about this for this release? I think probably we
don't so we can be consistent with previous releases <grin>.
Do we need to do something in long term about these files? Maybe, and if we
do I think these files should be taken out of the exclude list so they can
be checked at release audit time.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hm. Looks like this came in well after we started using doxygen. Background
> is here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
>
> I believe what they mean is that all of the comments - "comment lines" iiuc
> - in the file need to be removed and just keep the variable definition
> lines.
>
> Seems easy enough to do. If you do it please be sure to do it for all of
> them:
> ./src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> ./src/contrib/zkfuse/src/doxygen.cfg
> ./src/recipes/lock/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
> ./src/recipes/queue/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
>
> Patrick
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think this is a question more for Pat Hunt. When going over the RAT
> > report for the 3.5.3 RC, I noticed a bunch of doxygen-related files that
> > have been there for quite some as they don't have the Apache License
> > header. What actually called my attention is this observation in the
> legal
> > FAQ:
> >
> > CAN WE USE DOXYGEN-GENERATED CONFIG FILES?
> > As long as the generated comments are removed from the Doxygen-generated
> > files, these files may be used.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what comments this is referring to. Does Pat or
> > anyone else remember if we have done a license sanity check on those
> files?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Flavio
>
--
Cheers
Michael.
Re: Question about license
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Hm. Looks like this came in well after we started using doxygen. Background
is here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
I believe what they mean is that all of the comments - "comment lines" iiuc
- in the file need to be removed and just keep the variable definition
lines.
Seems easy enough to do. If you do it please be sure to do it for all of
them:
./src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
./src/contrib/zkfuse/src/doxygen.cfg
./src/recipes/lock/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
./src/recipes/queue/src/c/c-doc.Doxyfile
Patrick
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think this is a question more for Pat Hunt. When going over the RAT
> report for the 3.5.3 RC, I noticed a bunch of doxygen-related files that
> have been there for quite some as they don't have the Apache License
> header. What actually called my attention is this observation in the legal
> FAQ:
>
> CAN WE USE DOXYGEN-GENERATED CONFIG FILES?
> As long as the generated comments are removed from the Doxygen-generated
> files, these files may be used.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> I'm not entirely sure what comments this is referring to. Does Pat or
> anyone else remember if we have done a license sanity check on those files?
>
> Thanks,
> -Flavio