Le 02/04/15 14:20, Cédric Champeau a écrit : >> 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.
Not a problem. Be sure that the file get excluded from the rat check. > > >>> 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. Why is that ?
