On 11/12/11 21:52, Andy Seaborne wrote:
** Outstanding
Sort out the license/copyright on the testing material in Jena and ARQ.
(something other than 15+ line statements on a 4-line, or sometimes
less, file would be good from a usability POV)
Some are W3C copyright/license, the rest are granted content.
Leo wrote:
Test's 'n tools matter! (?)
---------------------------
Here are some legal issues for jena-core-2.7.0-incubating-source-release.zip:
* the data files in src-examples/data/, vocabularies/ and testing/ do generally
not have license information. Some have statements such as
# (c) Copyright 2004, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
# All rights reserved.
What is the license situation for all these files? Unless it interferes with
testing, there should probably be license headers in these files explaining
their status. If any of these files are differently-licensed that should be
indicated as appropriate.
If these files can't have license headers then there should probably be files
explaining that in these directories along with a statement as to the details
of their licensing.
Some of the tests are copies of W3C working groups tests, some are our own.
For the testing files that are copies of W3C,
1/ For RDF tests, I've put a LICENSE file at the root of the RDF-WG
testing files (many of the files have a license in them as well - not
systematically). This is the W3C software license.
2/ For DAWG tests, I've put such a LICENSE file in every directory.
W3C now license test suites specially with a different license to
software (which post-dates the DAWG and RDF test suites). The "test
suite" license forbids changing the tests (the software license does not
forbid changes).
I'm loathe to change the files themselves.
I've also fed this back to the respective working groups. The licenses
on tests may change (unlikely IMHO).
Oddity for the DAWG tests is that I wrote a majority of them in the
first place.
For the non-WG tests, they are granted material.
3/ jena-core : I've put a README_LICENSE file in each directory which is
the standard Apache boiler plate plus the following as first line:
"""
The following statement applied to all files in this directory unless
otherwise noted:
"""
4/ For ARQ, TDB, SDB, I have put the usual Apache boiler plate text in
each manifest file. All testing in these systems is manifest driven.
This all feels like some arbitrary decisions but I think it's a balance
of being clear and changing many small files to the point where the
boiler plate text is much greater than the file contents. At least it's
a concrete starting point for further discussions.
Andy
