You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@brooklyn.apache.org by eirinikos <gi...@git.apache.org> on 2018/06/20 00:44:55 UTC
[GitHub] brooklyn pull request #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recogni...
GitHub user eirinikos opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Hello! 👋
(CCing @dankohn who has requested this work so that the license will appear correctly in https://landscape.cncf.io/selected=apache-brooklyn)
GitHub uses a library called Licensee to identify a project's license
type. It shows this information in the status bar and via the API if it
can unambiguously identify the license.
This commit updates the LICENSE file so that it begins with the full
text of the Apache license (including the Appendix). The text that
preceded the beginning of the license text has been transferred to a
new "License" section in the README.
Collectively, these changes allow Licensee to successfully identify the
license type of Brooklyn as Apache 2.0.
REFS: BROOKLYN-593
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/eirinikos/brooklyn update-license
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #15
----
commit 6ca934ad1dacbfd9f49c5191b6fd40fe0cdb8073
Author: Andrea Kao <ei...@...>
Date: 2018-06-19T02:17:06Z
edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
GitHub uses a library called Licensee to identify a project's license
type. It shows this information in the status bar and via the API if it
can unambiguously identify the license.
This commit updates the LICENSE file so that it begins with the full
text of the Apache license (including the Appendix). The text that
preceded the beginning of the license text has been transferred to a
new "License" section in the README.
Collectively, these changes allow Licensee to successfully identify the
license type of Brooklyn as Apache 2.0.
REFS: BROOKLYN-593
Signed-off-by: Andrea Kao <ei...@gmail.com>
----
---
[GitHub] brooklyn pull request #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recogni...
Posted by asfgit <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by eirinikos <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user eirinikos commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
Thank you @geomacy and @ahgittin !
@ahgittin in response to your feedback ...
(1) Yes, I do have an ICLA on file (as of 6/18/18).
(2) Yes, it does seem like the Appendix is required for `licensee` to work. I agree with your point re: Google, but it seems that `licensee` gets easily confused if it does not detect the entirety of the Apache license text (Appendix, and all).
I also agree that the current approach isn't ideal, and that it could make sense to have `LICENSE` include only the Apache License and to have `NOTICE` include the other items. Looking forward to seeing what the ML has to say about this.
Also, thanks @geomacy for pointing out the discrepancy between this PR (on the `brooklyn` repo) and the actual URL on the [Landscape page](https://landscape.cncf.io/selected=apache-brooklyn). It looks like you and @ahgittin have a solution in place (i.e., updating the scripts). I wonder if it might also make sense for the Landscape page to point to the [Brooklyn repo](https://github.com/apache/brooklyn) rather than the [Brooklyn-Server repo](https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server) (@dankohn would be the one who could advise on that.)
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by ahgittin <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user ahgittin commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
@eirinikos I see what you mean about `licensee` being happier with the full-text -- it gives a 100% match as opposed to a 90-something. If it's just the TERMS part of the Apache license we get 99% which works but as soon as we append dependency licenses it drops to low 90's which isn't enough. However with the full text -- even with a little bit of front-matter -- it keeps 100% even when we append the others.
The ASF is pretty clear the dependency licenses should go in `LICENSE` so given that the above works I think we should include licenses in the license file, but move the informative header and dependency metadata into the NOTICE file. I've made a sample at https://github.com/ahgittin/license-sample and it seems to work. (Click on `LICENSE` and you see the `licensee` analysis at the top.)
I'll take this to the Brooklyn ML (I don't think we need to bother `legal-discuss`).
Thanks @eirinikos @dankohn and of course @geomacy .
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by geomacy <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user geomacy commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
hi @eirinikos, thanks, but I don't think you need to update the license docs for `brooklyn-server` etc. - unless I've misunderstood @ahgittin I believe he intends to do this as part of the license-related work he is doing anyway relating to the introduction of the new Brooklyn UI, as discussed on the mailing list. (Correct me if I'm wrong Alex!)
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by eirinikos <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user eirinikos commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
@geomacy yes, I think that's right! Sorry, I had a brain hiccup. Thank you for the reminder.
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by geomacy <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user geomacy commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
I think it's fine to point at `brooklyn-server`. It will certainly be rare to see an update in the top level project as it's just a parent project for the others.
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by geomacy <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user geomacy commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
hi @eirinikos this looks good, but I do have one question. The linked CNCF site above refers to Brooklyn's repository as `Repository https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server`. I'm guessing this change in `./.../brooklyn` will not fix the linked page above, is that right? I expect we should also update `brooklyn-server` and our other repositories (`dist`, `docs` etc.)?
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by ahgittin <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user ahgittin commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
@eirinikos TY. i agree with the objective and this is a good partial implementation. two main questions:
(1) do you have an Apache ICLA on file with the ASF so we can merge this?
(2) is the "APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work." required for `licensee` to work? given the existence of google etc it seems pointless.
@geomacy your point is correct, this should be done for all the sub-projects too. however the LICENSE files are auto-generated so rather than do them piecemeal i suggest we:
(A) agree the approach
(B) apply it to the scripts
(C) rerun the scripts
regarding (A) @eirinikos @geomacy, i'm not thrilled about moving the current header to 1000 lines down as it means a person reading it won't easily find it and probably won't have any clue that there is anything present in the file other than the main license. but i can see why the tool requires it to be the first or the only text in the file. however apache requires us to include much of that other info -- it doesn't _need_ the header but i think a header makes the information much more useful. which is a bit of a catch-22.
i wonder whether we could make `LICENSE` be _just_ the Apache License, and move other items into `NOTICE`. the ASF docs vary as to what should go into `NOTICE` but on the surface of it, given the trend that tools expect `LICENSE` to be a standard license nothing more nothing less, it seems a logical move to make `NOTICE` be the guy who holds all the other stuff. i will ask on the relevent ML and report back.
regarding (B) i've been working on that for a related issue as per ML so happy to pick this up once we settle (A).
in the meantime i think this should be merged once we have ICLA confirmation so that CNCF and other tools get the right idea, and we should check once we've done (C) that they still get the right idea.
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by eirinikos <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user eirinikos commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
Thanks a bunch @geomacy and @ahgittin.
@ahgittin thanks for linking to your sample license repo. I'll set about updating the license docs for `brooklyn-server` in a similar fashion, and I'll make sure to reference this PR. I ought to have submitted a PR for `brooklyn-server` in the first place, but I seem to have confused `brooklyn` for `brooklyn-server` in the process of consulting the [Brooklyn contributor's guide](https://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/how-to-contribute.html).
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by geomacy <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user geomacy commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
Sounds good to me @ahgittin
Yes it was my intention to update the scripts to change the licenses elsewhere, if you are happy to pick this up as part of changes you are making anyway that's grand.
@eirinikos sorry I should have asked about an ICLA, it would be great if you could file one. The Apache Brooklyn docs contain guidance about this at https://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/how-to-contribute.html. Thanks!
---
[GitHub] brooklyn issue #15: edit Brooklyn license info so that GitHub recognizes it
Posted by dankohn <gi...@git.apache.org>.
Github user dankohn commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn/pull/15
It's up to the project if you'd prefer that https://landscape.cncf.io/selected=apache-brooklyn point to https://github.com/apache/brooklyn instead of https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server. The issue I had with the former is that GitHub doesn't show an updated date when the subprojects are updated. So, until your April 30th update, it was showing the last update as November 2017. This is a problem because we have a policy to remove projects if they haven't been updated in 3 months.
The real issue here is that the metadata from sub-projects doesn't percolate up to the parent project. My workaround was just to point to Brooklyn Server.
---