Yes, I think we can do the package.html file headers after the release.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:27 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 June 2016 at 17:30, Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the explanations, Stian. A vote-email script might not be a > bad > > idea! It certainly > > seems to be a complicated thing to pull together. > > > > In response to Stian's email, I found some additional, related ASF > > resources that support not > > requiring license headers in files whose content cannot be copyrighted > > (e.g., files that contain > > "Hello"). Here is the link: > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > > > The exception also applies to "Test data for which the addition of a > source > > header would cause > > the tests to fail." > > > > It seems that most of the files that currently do not have license > headers, > > including > > files in the services sub-directories, meet the criteria of being exempt > > from the license header > > requirement. > > Ah, great. So we're generally good to go with those test files then, > and can just list them in the apache-rat excludes - which I think is a > good way to say "Yeah, we know about this file, 's fine". > > > > However, it sounds like we SHOULD add license headers to the > > package.html files. > > Do we want to do that way now, and then later convert to > > package-info.java files? > > Just convert them right away, I think.. it's generally just rename and > add the ASF header and the Java "package " line. > > The only tricky thing about them is that you need to use the two > different Java comment blocks carefully so that the ASF header does > not become the JAvadoc, that is > > src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/foo/package-info.java > > /* ASF */ > /** javadoc for this package **/ > package org.apache.taverna.foo; > > And we should have such package info for all API-like packages at > least.. like in all the *-api bits in taverna-engine. (It might just > have a one-liner with the description from README) > > > Shall we do this after this release? > > > > > I also found an ASF link that confirms what Stian said about only BUNDLED > > dependencies > > needing to be included in NOTICE files. Good to know. > > (http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled) > > Yes - so bundled would be when we make a binaries/ upload. > > Not sure if this also covers any bundling in Maven Central - e.g. > > > http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/taverna/language/taverna-tavlang-tool/0.15.1-incubating/taverna-tavlang-tool-0.15.1-incubating.jar > includes bundled JARs, but the Maven plugins seem to have managed to > combine the contained META-INF/NOTICE. (Thanks, Menaka) > > > > > Also, regarding 3rd party copyrighted works: I found an ASF link that > > explicitly states: > > -- not to modify/remove copyright headers from 3rd party works; > > -- not to add the standard ASF license header to 3rd party works. > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > > OK, so we'll leave those BSD copyrights in place in say the > taverna-engine hadoop crossproduct.java > > > > One remaining question about 3rd party license in > > src/license/THIRD-PARTY.properties: > > > > javax.transaction--com.springsource.javax.transaction--1.1.0 (CDDL > 1.0) > > > > Is this an exception to the category-b license "binary only" rule > because > > we use only > > a small amount of source code? > > But it's not included - we don't distribute javax.transaction in the > source archive; it's downloaded from Maven repositories. You won't > see it until you have built the commandline product: > > Directory of > D:\src\apache-taverna-commandline-3.1.0-incubating\taverna-commandline-product\target\apache-taverna-commandline-3.1.0-incubating\lib\javax.transaction > > 2016-06-06 14:10 <DIR> . > 2016-06-06 14:10 <DIR> .. > 2016-05-31 16:23 15,518 > com.springsource.javax.transaction-1.1.0.jar > > (or look in ~/.m2/repository/javax/transaction) > > > One observation about headers in JSON files > > Most of the JSON files have the header you described ( > http://purl.org. > > ..). > > Yeah.. some kind of JSON-LD-like workaround -- the key is unlikely to > be used for anything but for licenses - and generally JSON consumers > ignore extra keys. > > > > Is it okay if the JSON file header uses ##? (See below). > > > > > taverna-activity-archetype\src\main\resources\archetype-resource > > > \__rootArtifactId__-activity\src\main\resources\schema.json > > No, there are no valid comment characters in JSON. The Jackson JSON > parser might be configurable to accept # though - but I don't think we > want to rely on that. > > The resource above has ## comments because it's a Velocity template > for generating schema.json in the archetype - the generated file in > the user's plugin should NOT inherit that ASF header, as they might or > might not want to choose to license their plugin under the ASF > license. > > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >
