As a side note: Whenever we get our CI server setup, we should probably have a build task which checks for licensing in code files and inserts it if it's not there.
Thanks, Troy On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael Herndon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >> >
