Ross Gardler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > Ross Gardler wrote: > >> David Crossley wrote: > >> > Ross Gardler wrote: > >> >> Tim Williams wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > FOR-855 verify the license situation prior to each release > >> >> > - housekeeping > >> >> > >> >> I believe Davids work with RAT fixes this issue. > >> > > >> > No it does not. There is much more to the job that that. > >> > >> I meant that running RAT shows all licence headers are in place. we > >> still need to do the housekeeping work that is normal due diligence on > >> a release, of course. > > > > I meant that FOR-855 has much more than just the license header situation. > > I have been working on it steadily for a long time now, and there is more > > to do. > > OK, I should have reviewed the issue. I have no opinion on whether > this is a blocker or not. I assumed that previous releases were > legally sound (which I believe they were since we voted them through).
We have cut corners on previous releases. Our top-level LICENSE.txt file is not in line with agreed ASF best practice. It is supposed to display relevant licenses for supporting products. Also all supporting product licenses need to be systematically reviewed. Since the last release some things have been haphazardly added to SVN. Also last time we could easily have missed some. > Tim indicated that this was "housekeeping" which I took to mean the > normal due diligence on a release. Yes, but i marked it as Blocker (same process as i did for the previous releases) because a release should not be rolled until the situation is suitable. I will plod along with FOR-855 and FOR-857 while other people attend to other things. -David
