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.
---
