Regarding the RAT check: 2013/3/20 Sebastian Schaffert <sebastian.schaff...@gmail.com>: > I was looking at how Stanbol does it and was not too happy about it, > because it creates a maintenance headache with too many exclude files > distributed over the source tree. I prefer having an overview over what is > excluded so it is easy to fix.
Yes, it is a maintenance headache. But otherwise I have not seen a way to control it properly. We (in Stanbol) are doing it this way based on the comments by our mentor Bertrand during incubation. We even place a README somewhere near the excluded file that informs about the license of that file. I understand your viewpoint but how does the Marmotta podling itself check the headers? How do you convince yourself? The fact that some file formats do not support comments does not prevent you from the burden to specify the license of such a specific file somehow. The problem is that there is AFAIK no default for files without any license information. But since I am also rather new in the Apache world, this may be a situation where in practice it could be handled as you did. I would like to hear the opinion of the other mentors on this. -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
