On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:26 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 16:11 -0700, Luciano Resende wrote: > >> You should consider that some files that currently does not have a ASF > >> header are that way because they use a different license and are > >> indeed correct. > > > > perhaps that's the point: use RAT to detect those with different > > licenses > > Yes, the initial idea would be to do a reporting run, this would > indicate the number of files under a non-Apache licence. Those that are > OK would need to be added to an exclude list. > > Then do a re-licence run in which those not in the exclude list are > re-licenced. > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Is it within the scope of RAT to optionally add licence headers > >>> automatically to documents that don't yet have them? > >>> > >>> If so, I may implement such a feature at some point in the near future > >>> using the relicensing scripts, available here in the ASF, as a starting > >>> point. > > > > possibly: but feel free to start here > > OK, well I have about 2000 files that need relicensing and a little > "play time", so rather than just run the scripts against the code I'll > have a bash at bringing the functionality into RAT as described above.
all sounds great :-) patch ATA...? - robert
