Le 02/04/15 08:58, Cédric Champeau a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm going to look into updating the headers of source files. As far as I > understand from [1], it is required that we change the headers from: > > /* > * Copyright 2003-2013 the original author or authors. > * > * Licensed 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 > * > * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > * > * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software > * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, > * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. > * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and > * limitations under the License. > */ > > > to: > > /* > * 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 > * > * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > * > * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, > * software distributed under the License is distributed on an > * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY > * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the > * specific language governing permissions and limitations > * under the License. > */ > > > > Is that correct? Correct.
And that's for all the files, including shell scrips, XML, etc. For those two guys, you can use : shell and properties 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 # # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 # # Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, # software distributed under the License is distributed on an # "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY # KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the # specific language governing permissions and limitations # under the License. XML : <!-- 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 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. --> Note that the apache-rat plugin will check the presence of these headers (in a maven world, of course ;-) > I also have a question regarding documentation. The > documentation is licensed under Creative Commons by-sa. Currently it is > only reflected in [2]. How should we proceed? The CC license is compatible with the AL 2.0 license, and can be imported in Apache projects (see https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a). Here, I think it's a matter of choice : either you kep it under CC, or you move it to AL 2.0. I would guess that the simplest is to leave the doco under the current license, and for the new doco, adopt AL 2.0. What is the other mentors opinion ? Emmanuel
