I'm curious about the practice of putting license information into all files. The reasoning and etc.
Is due to legal reasons or is it due to good practices? would providing short copyright info and relative path to the license suffice or is the full license required? Has not doing so cause issues/legal cases in the past? This will probably be good information for other developers to know in general as well. - Michael On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-02-23, Troy Howard wrote: > > > I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1 is > > available and ready for your testing and voting. > > Great. > > I could successfully verify your PGP signature. > > > Release candidate artifacts: > > > http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/2.9.2-incubating-RC1/dist/ > > I found some issues, some really only cosmetic and maybe even a matter > of taste, and some that may lead Incubator PMC members to vote -1. It > may be better to fix those even if it means you'd lose against your > schedule and have the release slip a day. > > Not only cosmetic: > > * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about > Lucene.NET at all. Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and > 2006-2011. > > * LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java > and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ArrayUtil.java that certainly > don't exist while there are files with different names that the > corresponding license entry applies to. > > * Quite a few files that could contain the ASF license don't. > I've run RAT[1] over the distribution archives and the results are > here <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/> > > I dont think the .txt files need a license, but the .html, .cs, .xml > (at least the ones that are not generated), .config, .nunit and > .resources files can and should. One could even argue the .sln and > .c[ds]proj files should (the build.xml or pom.xml files of Java > projects also do). > > * some snowball files need to get relicensed under Apache Software > License 2.0 (the are still at 1.1). > > Cosmetic of low importance, feel free to ignore some: > > * The top level directories of the bin and src archives are different, > which is confusing (Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.2-incubating-RC1.bin vs > 2.9.2). > > * The layout of the bin archive is, uhm, surprising. You wouldn't > expect to find a top level src directory when you look for DLLs only. > > * I wouldn't include the .user files in the src ZIP. > > * The file names inside the .md5 and .sha1 files are all lowercase while > the real filenames ar not. This may lead automated integrity checks > to flag them as not matching. > > Stefan > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ >
