2009/11/24 David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>: > 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.
Hmm.... not good. I wonder if this has occured as things have crept into plugins. Perhaps each plugin should have a licence.txt file and the build system should merge them together at build time. > 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. I've tried to review every commit for such things. I hope others have been doing the same to catch the ones I miss. I'm pretty sure that a review of licences is already in the release workflow - if not it should be, for the reasons you give. >> 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'm not saying it is not a blocker, I'm agreeing it is part of the required housekeeping of a release. In other words we are in agreement ;-) > I will plod along with FOR-855 and FOR-857 while other people > attend to other things. Thank you. I'd like to say I'd help, but to be honest I doubt I'll find the time. Ross
