> See [1][2] on policy and many many projects do it except those that were > developed solely at the ASF. In practice, you can find many, many that have stock files and were not developed solely at the ASF.
Considering our statement was "The OpenZipkin Authors", I have not seen any file at all like this.. noting a non-legal entity.. though I haven't searched the entire org. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, rather it feels like cruft and not commonly applied. I wish others would chime in on topics like this. > Where does the code original come from is the question? That ASF header > states it was licensed to the ASF under an CLA. Is this actually the case? Again, this seems a site of unique enforcement with questionable clarity as a result. You seem to want us to add a statement saying that this code came from the Takari maven plugin and/or to investigate their CLA process. You are asking us eventhough many many projects use this as-is. We can follow this, but the same feedback applies. The general feedback is that we are being asked to do things of questionable value even if it is to the letter of the law as you interpret it. Meanwhile graduated projects do not fall under this more strict regime and the types of enforcement are certainly more strict. It seems strict enforcements in general should be a community decide thing vs one person, even if you are very qualified, Justin. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
