You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au> on 2011/04/10 22:43:34 UTC
[zeta-dev] License Headers
Hi All,
Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header.
This means they are either unlicensed or have
the old ez.no license header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses.
These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding.
* - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other
branches have been checked yet but they will be next.
(your website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also for
another time)
I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use the
Apache License.
Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started and
provide patches.
(as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git
workflows I'd also like
to provide some of these patches via git patch and/or pull requests etc so
please let me know
how I can do that at any stage and if its welcomed)
Gav...
[1] - http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html
[2] - http://ci.apache.org/projects/zetacomponents/rat-output.html
Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Sebastian,
> Who are you? Could you please have the decency of posting using a
> realname on this mailinglist. Thanks!
Gavin is a well known and respected member of the ASF. He has around
at various places and helps a lot especially on infra topics. He
established the pear channel for log4php and zeta. And helped
incubating log4php, creating the buildbot and much more.
This page is pretty interesting if you are looking for the apache
background of somebody:
http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
Of course this would have not helped you now, but I thought it might
be interesting anyway.
Cheers
RE: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Bergmann [mailto:sebastian@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 4:59 PM
> To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
>
> Am 11.04.2011 00:43, schrieb Gav...:
> > Gav...
>
> Who are you? Could you please have the decency of posting using a
> realname on this mailinglist. Thanks!
Gavin McDonald <gm...@apache.org>
>
> --
> Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant
> http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by Sebastian Bergmann <se...@apache.org>.
Am 11.04.2011 00:43, schrieb Gav...:
> Gav...
Who are you? Could you please have the decency of posting using a
realname on this mailinglist. Thanks!
--
Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by Jerome Renard <je...@gmail.com>.
Gavin,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jerome Renard [mailto:jerome.renard@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 11 April 2011 5:09 PM
>> To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Gav...
>> Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
>>
>> Hi Gavin,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header.
>> > This means they are either unlicensed or have the old ez.no license
>> > header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses.
>> >
>>
>> As far as I can see only test files do not have (or have incorrect) license
>> headers.
>
> Sure, that'll account for most of them, test files or not , some of them, like
> the source files (mostly .php) that perform the testsshould have a license
> header, whereas the majority of files being used as data files, or otherwise
> being used to perform the tests, are ok and even necessary in some cases
> to not have the license applied. That is fine and not in dispute. What we
> therefore need to do is go through them and add any files/directories/patterns
> that we can 'exclude' from the RAT reports by making entries in the
> .ratignore [3] file in your svn.
>
Ok.
> I was going to go through the first few mentioned in the RAT report here but I
> will instead as a test do the first few using reviewboard, you'll then see I'm not
> suggesting mass adding of licenses. ;)
>
Phew, I first thought a mass adding of licenses was required ;)
>>
>> > These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding.
>> >
>> > * - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other
>> > branches have been checked yet but they will be next.
>> >
>> > (your website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also
>> > for another time)
>> >
>> > I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use
>> > the Apache License.
>> >
>> > Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started
>> > and provide patches.
>> >
>>
>> It is. I have one question though:
>> How non text/plain files are supposed to be handled regarding the license ?
>> For example Archive/tests/data/ezpublish.ott is an OpenOffice.org file, does
>> it require any license header as well ? If so adding a license for that kind of
>> document might break a couple of tests.
>
> No, it is fine to 'exclude' those sorts of files from the RAT reports by adding them
> to the .ratignore file list.
>
Ok.
> The main thing we need to do here is exclude what needs excluding, that then
> may leave some that need licenses adding, and/or may leave some that need
> the ez.no and/or (L)GPL licenses replacing.
>
> This then allows Zeta Components to point to the RAT report as part of applying
> to the Incubator for a release to happen, some folks are fairly strict and you will
> get picked up on licensing issues, it is in fact most podlings main stumbling block
> when doing a release so whilst most coders will find this boring/pointless/etc
> it is in fact necessary to fulfil one of the objectives mentioned in your last
> board report. (do a release)
>
>>
>> > (as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git
>> > workflows I'd also like to provide some of these patches via git patch
>> > and/or pull requests etc so please let me know how I can do that at
>> > any stage and if its welcomed)
>> >
>>
>> Would it be acceptable for you to use the reviewboard instance ?
>
> Sure, I'll have a go.
>
> We recently added mail hooks to jira & reviewboard & the mailing lists so I'll
> create an issue and link the reviews to it.
>
Cool, thanks a lot :)
--
Jérôme Renard
http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard
RE: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerome Renard [mailto:jerome.renard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 11 April 2011 5:09 PM
> To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Gav...
> Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
>
> Hi Gavin,
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header.
> > This means they are either unlicensed or have the old ez.no license
> > header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses.
> >
>
> As far as I can see only test files do not have (or have incorrect) license
> headers.
Sure, that'll account for most of them, test files or not , some of them, like
the source files (mostly .php) that perform the testsshould have a license
header, whereas the majority of files being used as data files, or otherwise
being used to perform the tests, are ok and even necessary in some cases
to not have the license applied. That is fine and not in dispute. What we
therefore need to do is go through them and add any files/directories/patterns
that we can 'exclude' from the RAT reports by making entries in the
.ratignore [3] file in your svn.
I was going to go through the first few mentioned in the RAT report here but I
will instead as a test do the first few using reviewboard, you'll then see I'm not
suggesting mass adding of licenses. ;)
>
> > These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding.
> >
> > * - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other
> > branches have been checked yet but they will be next.
> >
> > (your website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also
> > for another time)
> >
> > I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use
> > the Apache License.
> >
> > Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started
> > and provide patches.
> >
>
> It is. I have one question though:
> How non text/plain files are supposed to be handled regarding the license ?
> For example Archive/tests/data/ezpublish.ott is an OpenOffice.org file, does
> it require any license header as well ? If so adding a license for that kind of
> document might break a couple of tests.
No, it is fine to 'exclude' those sorts of files from the RAT reports by adding them
to the .ratignore file list.
The main thing we need to do here is exclude what needs excluding, that then
may leave some that need licenses adding, and/or may leave some that need
the ez.no and/or (L)GPL licenses replacing.
This then allows Zeta Components to point to the RAT report as part of applying
to the Incubator for a release to happen, some folks are fairly strict and you will
get picked up on licensing issues, it is in fact most podlings main stumbling block
when doing a release so whilst most coders will find this boring/pointless/etc
it is in fact necessary to fulfil one of the objectives mentioned in your last
board report. (do a release)
>
> > (as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git
> > workflows I'd also like to provide some of these patches via git patch
> > and/or pull requests etc so please let me know how I can do that at
> > any stage and if its welcomed)
> >
>
> Would it be acceptable for you to use the reviewboard instance ?
Sure, I'll have a go.
We recently added mail hooks to jira & reviewboard & the mailing lists so I'll
create an issue and link the reviews to it.
>
> Thanks :)
Gav...
[3] - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/zetacomponents/trunk/.rat-ignore
>
> --
> Jérôme Renard
> http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard
Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers
Posted by Jerome Renard <je...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gavin,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header.
> This means they are either unlicensed or have
> the old ez.no license header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses.
>
As far as I can see only test files do not have (or have incorrect)
license headers.
> These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding.
>
> * - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other
> branches have been checked yet but they will be next.
>
> (your website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also for
> another time)
>
> I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use the
> Apache License.
>
> Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started and
> provide patches.
>
It is. I have one question though:
How non text/plain files are supposed to be handled regarding the license ?
For example Archive/tests/data/ezpublish.ott is an OpenOffice.org
file, does it require
any license header as well ? If so adding a license for that kind of
document might break
a couple of tests.
> (as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git
> workflows I'd also like
> to provide some of these patches via git patch and/or pull requests etc so
> please let me know
> how I can do that at any stage and if its welcomed)
>
Would it be acceptable for you to use the reviewboard instance ?
Thanks :)
--
Jérôme Renard
http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard