[DISCUSS] License notice in Camel archetypes generated files.

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

When files are generated using the Camel archetypes, the code contains  
the usual license note we have in the Camel files:
  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
  * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed  
with
  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,  
Version 2.0
  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
  * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at

I am not sure if the *generated* files should contain the statement  
that the code:
* is "Licensed to the [...] ASF"
* "under one or more" CLAs (people who ran the maven archetype most  
likely don't have a CLA on file
* "The ASF licenses this file to You"

Obviously the user would be responsible for his code, so he'd have to  
replace all the license comments with her own.  Are we doing her any  
service? Should we put some generic TODO comment?

Am I too pedantic?
Hadrian

Re: [DISCUSS] License notice in Camel archetypes generated files.

[Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>]

Hi Claus,

CXF‘ generated file doesn't have the ASF licenes header, I think it 
because velocity doesn't count on the commented ASF licenes header of 
the template[1].

I think current Camel archetypes doesn't filter the resources file's ASF 
licenes header comments, so we can still see the ASF licenes header in 
the generated file.

[1]https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/tools/javato/ws/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/tools/java2wsdl/processor/internal/simple/generator/template/client.vm

Willem
Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When files are generated using the Camel archetypes, the code contains the
>> usual license note we have in the Camel files:
>>  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>  * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>>  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>>  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>>  * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>
>> I am not sure if the *generated* files should contain the statement that the
>> code:
>> * is "Licensed to the [...] ASF"
>> * "under one or more" CLAs (people who ran the maven archetype most likely
>> don't have a CLA on file
>> * "The ASF licenses this file to You"
>>
>> Obviously the user would be responsible for his code, so he'd have to
>> replace all the license comments with her own.  Are we doing her any
>> service? Should we put some generic TODO comment?
>>
> 
> I wonder what CXF does with its wsdl2java tool? Does it put in a
> license header on the .java files?
> 
> 
> 
>> Am I too pedantic?
> 
> Could be, nobody else have reported it before :)
> But great that you spotted it and started a discussion.
> 
> 
>> Hadrian
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] License notice in Camel archetypes generated files.

[Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When files are generated using the Camel archetypes, the code contains the
> usual license note we have in the Camel files:
>  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>  * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
>  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
>  * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
>
> I am not sure if the *generated* files should contain the statement that the
> code:
> * is "Licensed to the [...] ASF"
> * "under one or more" CLAs (people who ran the maven archetype most likely
> don't have a CLA on file
> * "The ASF licenses this file to You"
>
> Obviously the user would be responsible for his code, so he'd have to
> replace all the license comments with her own.  Are we doing her any
> service? Should we put some generic TODO comment?
>

I wonder what CXF does with its wsdl2java tool? Does it put in a
license header on the .java files?



> Am I too pedantic?

Could be, nobody else have reported it before :)
But great that you spotted it and started a discussion.


> Hadrian
>



-- 
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer

Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus