> Is that correct? > Correct. > > And that's for all the files, including shell scrips, XML, etc. For > those two guys, you can use : > > Note that the apache-rat plugin will check the presence of these headers > (in a maven world, of course ;-) > > We do have a similar plugin, which updates the files appropriately. However there are two kind of files which are treated differently:
* groovy files with the shebang line (#!/bin/groovy) need to have the shebang line first, then the header * some documentation examples have no header on purpose, because they are included in a block of code in the documentation. It wouldn't make any sense to have a header in a snippet of code in a documentation page. > > 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. > > I am not fully convinced it would be easier. Also CC makes much more sense for documentation than AL2.0 IMHO. > What is the other mentors opinion ? > > Emmanuel > >
