You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> on 2007/09/17 12:22:07 UTC
RATing jSPF
I just ran RAT aginast jSPF.
It of course complain about this classes having the unusual header:
src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/DNSTestingServer.java
src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/TCPListener.java
src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/UDPListener.java
the header:
---------------
// ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE
// ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE
//
// Part of this class have been inspired and copy&pasted from the
jnamed.java
// file found in the root of the dnsjava-2.0.5 distribution file.
//
// The Copyright for the original work is:
// Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Brian Wellington (bwelling@xbill.org)
//
// The License for the dnsjava-2.0.5 package is BSD
----------------
I just changed the classes adding the ASLv2 header on top of that one
and leaving that one in place, too.
I remember we discussed this topic in past, too, and IIRC this was an
acceptable solution.
Then we have problematic headers in stage/**/*.pom files, but they are
third party descriptor, so we leave them as is.
Then we have no headers in the test resources:
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/mailzone-tests.yml
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/pyspf-tests.yml
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/tests.yml
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_parser.txt
!????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_rfc_examples.txt
rfc4408-tests has already been removed from our codebase (I have it only
in my local copy so to run more tests) because the current licensing for
that file is now dual licensed under the GNU GPL v2 and the Creative
Commons CC BY-SA 2.5. AFAIU CC BY-SA may be ASF compatible but this is
under investigation (at least it was 1 year ago).
The pyspf-tests seems to be licensed under the same terms of the
rfc4408-tests: should we remove this too?
A weird thing about the 2 files is that they are included in the BSD
licensed Mail-SPF Perl module (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SPF/). I
don't know if they got a special relicensed version or if they are
simply not aware of the licensing issues.
The *.txt files are copied (or based on) files from dual licensed (LGPL
+ 2-clause BSD) libspf2 (http://www.libspf2.org/): should we add an
header? Should we add a NOTICE reference for this??
The mailzone-tests.yml has been written by US based on the live
mailzone.com zone content. Should we add our ASLv2 header?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: RATing jSPF
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/19/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> > On 9/17/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Should we add a NOTICE reference for this??
> >
> > yes
> >
> > also, their license details need to be added into the LICENSE file
>
> I'm adding the (src\test....) link to our NOTICE after the already
> existing sentence:
> --- NOTICE
> SPF Test (test*.txt) contains resources derived from the
> libspf2 library (http://www.libspf2.org/) and distributed under
> the BSD license and copyright by Wayne Schlitt, Shevek.
> (src\test\resources\org\apache\james\jspf\libspf2.LICENSES)
> ------
> And add the libspf2.LICENSES file to that folder.
>
> I saw that the latest maven plugin for managing LICENSE/NOTICE
> generation adds 3rd party LICENSING references to the NOTICE file and
> not to the LICENSE file.
>
> I remember that Cliff told us to put the whole 3rd party LICENSEs or an
> url to the LICENSEs or a local reference to the LICENSE file at the
> bottom of our LICENSE file (as you tell now).
>
> Some months ago I wrote to the maven-dev list to ask why they added the
> 3rd party licenses reference to the "wrong" file and they replied that
> they double checked this with Cliff and it was ok.
ok is not the same thing as right :-)
LICENSE should really be used for licenses and NOTICE for notices
AIUI the goal is to ensure that downstream folks understand the legal
properties of the files they've downloaded. this goal is satisfied
even if NOTICE contains license information so it's ok to ship.
> Are we ok with that licensing info being in the NOTICE file or should I
> revamp this discussion on the maven list, too?
not sure that'd be worth your time
if it matters then one day, it'll all be written up
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: RATing jSPF
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On 9/17/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>> Then we have problematic headers in stage/**/*.pom files, but they are
>> third party descriptor, so we leave them as is.
>>
>> Then we have no headers in the test resources:
>>
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/mailzone-tests.yml
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/pyspf-tests.yml
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/tests.yml
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_parser.txt
>> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_rfc_examples.txt
>
> if these are covered by CLAs and it is possible to add comments
> without breaking them, then headers need to be added.
As you probably noticed in the following sentences only the
mailzone-tests.yml has been written by us.
>> The *.txt files are copied (or based on) files from dual licensed (LGPL
>> + 2-clause BSD) libspf2 (http://www.libspf2.org/): should we add an
>> header?
>
> not unless we change them
>
>> Should we add a NOTICE reference for this??
>
> yes
>
> also, their license details need to be added into the LICENSE file
I'm adding the (src\test....) link to our NOTICE after the already
existing sentence:
--- NOTICE
SPF Test (test*.txt) contains resources derived from the
libspf2 library (http://www.libspf2.org/) and distributed under
the BSD license and copyright by Wayne Schlitt, Shevek.
(src\test\resources\org\apache\james\jspf\libspf2.LICENSES)
------
And add the libspf2.LICENSES file to that folder.
I saw that the latest maven plugin for managing LICENSE/NOTICE
generation adds 3rd party LICENSING references to the NOTICE file and
not to the LICENSE file.
I remember that Cliff told us to put the whole 3rd party LICENSEs or an
url to the LICENSEs or a local reference to the LICENSE file at the
bottom of our LICENSE file (as you tell now).
Some months ago I wrote to the maven-dev list to ask why they added the
3rd party licenses reference to the "wrong" file and they replied that
they double checked this with Cliff and it was ok.
Are we ok with that licensing info being in the NOTICE file or should I
revamp this discussion on the maven list, too?
>> The mailzone-tests.yml has been written by US based on the live
>> mailzone.com zone content. Should we add our ASLv2 header?
>
> yes
>
> - rober
Ok, added the header to mailzone-tests!
Thank you for driving me through the license/copyright nightmare,
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: RATing jSPF
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/17/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> I just ran RAT aginast jSPF.
>
> It of course complain about this classes having the unusual header:
>
> src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/DNSTestingServer.java
> src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/TCPListener.java
> src/test/java/org/apache/james/jspf/dnsserver/UDPListener.java
>
> the header:
> ---------------
> // ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE
> // ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE ATTENTION PLEASE
> //
> // Part of this class have been inspired and copy&pasted from the
> jnamed.java
> // file found in the root of the dnsjava-2.0.5 distribution file.
> //
> // The Copyright for the original work is:
> // Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Brian Wellington (bwelling@xbill.org)
> //
> // The License for the dnsjava-2.0.5 package is BSD
> ----------------
not ever file needs to have an apache license header. RAT just
highlights those files which may be difficult.
RAT needs a lot of work :-/
need to be able to read detached license files and also to be able to
add new header types without altering code
> I just changed the classes adding the ASLv2 header on top of that one
> and leaving that one in place, too.
>
> I remember we discussed this topic in past, too, and IIRC this was an
> acceptable solution.
not sure that i'm very happy with the wording. it's really only the
changes which are covered by a CLA. i would feel happier running this
past legal-discuss.
> Then we have problematic headers in stage/**/*.pom files, but they are
> third party descriptor, so we leave them as is.
>
> Then we have no headers in the test resources:
>
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/mailzone-tests.yml
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/pyspf-tests.yml
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/rfc4408-tests.yml
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/tests.yml
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_parser.txt
> !????? src/test/resources/org/apache/james/jspf/test_rfc_examples.txt
if these are covered by CLAs and it is possible to add comments
without breaking them, then headers need to be added.
> rfc4408-tests has already been removed from our codebase (I have it only
> in my local copy so to run more tests) because the current licensing for
> that file is now dual licensed under the GNU GPL v2 and the Creative
> Commons CC BY-SA 2.5. AFAIU CC BY-SA may be ASF compatible but this is
> under investigation (at least it was 1 year ago).
>
> The pyspf-tests seems to be licensed under the same terms of the
> rfc4408-tests: should we remove this too?
>
> A weird thing about the 2 files is that they are included in the BSD
> licensed Mail-SPF Perl module (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SPF/). I
> don't know if they got a special relicensed version or if they are
> simply not aware of the licensing issues.
perhaps
> The *.txt files are copied (or based on) files from dual licensed (LGPL
> + 2-clause BSD) libspf2 (http://www.libspf2.org/): should we add an
> header?
not unless we change them
> Should we add a NOTICE reference for this??
yes
also, their license details need to be added into the LICENSE file
> The mailzone-tests.yml has been written by US based on the live
> mailzone.com zone content. Should we add our ASLv2 header?
yes
- rober
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org