On 11/19/13 7:14 PM, jan i wrote: > hi > > just to be correct the current trunk, contain 3 files that are not alv2 > licenses (ref. ratscan #81 > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html), I assume they > should be changed: > > ----> > /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/solenv/inc/lldb4aoo.py > svn info tells: r1448186 | hdu | 2013-02-20 15:36:06 +0100 (Wed, 20 Feb > 2013) > the file in 4.0.1 tag contain the same license(Revision: 1543528). > I wonder why ratscan did not complain when the release was made ? > > ---> > /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/vcl/inc/win/g_msaasvc.h > I cannot find this file in svn, it seems to be a generated file, but not > the correct place for generated files ? > > ---> > /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/winaccessibility/source/UAccCOMIDL/ia2_api_all.idl > file is in svn, so just need to be corrected. > > Please dont misunderstand me, I think the ia2 work and all other work are > THE TOP, however we should be careful when informing the world that all our > work is alv2. > > I am sorry if I have misunderstood something, but then I need to understand > why we ignore the output from ratscan.
we take the ratscan output serious but it can happen that files contain not the proper license yet or have to be excluded like "ia2_api_all.idl" which has BSD like license but is not accepted by rat by mistake. The info that the code we produce is under ALV2 is correct I did not say that all the files in our repo are under ALv2. But yes the ratscan should be clean always. Juergen > > rgds > > jan I. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
