Re: copyright-notice [WAS Re: [jira] [Commented] (WHISKER-3) The license.vm template makes too many assumptions about skipping licensing details for the primary org and license type.]

2012-11-05 Thread Chip Childers 
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
 On 11/03/12 12:20, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

 On 11/02/12 00:44, Chip Childers wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
 robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

 On 10/29/12 13:46, Chip Childers wrote:

 snip

 Please do let me know if I can be of any assistance!



 The descriptor[1] has a lot ofcopyright-notice elements for licenses
 where they aren't necessary[2]. Did the documentations or the element
 naming
 (say) give the impression that this information is necessary - or
 were they
 included because that the way you want the LICENSE to be ...?


 snip

 Perhaps I hit a bug then, because I found that without a copyright
 tag, with-license elements were being skipped.


 I'll create some tests to investigate


 With the latest code-base, the only difference after removing
 copyright-notice elements from with-license elements is that the copyright
 claims are gone. Could you check if the problem is fixed in the current code
 base...?

 Cheers

 Robert


I'm not able to reproduce this, so it may very well have been user
error.  Thanks Robert.

Re: Include Source URLs in Generated LICENSE...?

2012-11-01 Thread Chip Childers 
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 1 November 2012 00:34, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:49 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 31 October 2012 21:12, Robert Burrell Donkin
 robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
 Whisker[1] generates LICENSE and NOTICE documents from meta-data. An
 optional source URL can be associated with each resource contained in a
 distribution. Originally, this supported licenses which require the source
 to be printed in the NOTICE but Apache CloudStack[2] would like to include 
 a
 source URL in the LICENSE. This would be unconventional but I'm not sure it
 would be harmful.

 So, I'm leaning towards introducing a configuration allow this

 Opinions? Objections?

 The content of URLs can change, so provided the current content is
 included in the LICENSE file I don't see any harm in also including
 the URL from which it was derived.

 Actually, and please do correct me if I don't understand the whisker
 meta-data correctly, we (the CloudStack project) are using the
 source attribute to provide a URL from which the reader can access
 the source code of a dependency or included software artifact.  Have I
 misunderstood that attribute?

 Or maybe I have.

The documentation [1] is a little confusing, but as I read it (and the
CDDL clause that I believe is being mentioned), I think it's
specifically designed to provide a method of linking to the source
code.  This isn't important when we are distributing the source
itself, but does matter when we are trying to create the legal
documents that cover a binary distribution.

Given the interpretation above, the reasoning for having the source
link in the LICENSE file was specifically for scenarios where there
isn't a NOTICE requirement for a particular resource, but we are
required to provide a link to the source code.

[1] http://creadur.apache.org/whisker/meta-data.html#Source_Links


 However, I don't think the LICENSE file should contain only the URL.
 Apart from the fact that the content might vary, the end-user should
 not have to go fetch another file - the LICENSE file should be
 complete.

 Absolutely.  The actual license needs to be in the LICENSE file.

 Robert

 [1] http://creadur.apache.org/whisker
 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHISKER-3

Issue with the Whisker CLI

2012-08-16 Thread Chip Childers 
Hi all,

I've found an issue with the Whisker CLI command line parsing logic,
which the diff below resolves.  Basically, as it stands in trunk
today, the CLI is only able to run the help function, since the parse
method isn't being provided the full list of possible options.

We're trying to setup Whisker for the CloudStack project, and I was
hoping to use the CLI for development of the required metadata files.

Is there a specific method you would like me to follow to get this fix
(or something more appropriate) into the codebase?

-chip


Index: apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java
===
--- apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java   
(revision
1373827)
+++ apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java   
(working
copy)
@@ -188,9 +188,13 @@
  */
 private boolean printHelp(String[] args) throws ParseException {
 final CommandLineOption help = CommandLineOption.PRINT_HELP;
-return help.isSetOn(
-parser().parse(new Options().addOption(
-help.create()), args));
+try {
+   return help.isSetOn(
+   parser().parse(new Options().addOption(
+   help.create()), args));
+} catch (ParseException e) {
+   return false;
+}
 }

 /**

Re: Issue with the Whisker CLI

2012-08-16 Thread Chip Childers 
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
 Hi all,

 I've found an issue with the Whisker CLI command line parsing logic,
 which the diff below resolves.  Basically, as it stands in trunk
 today, the CLI is only able to run the help function, since the parse
 method isn't being provided the full list of possible options.

 We're trying to setup Whisker for the CloudStack project, and I was
 hoping to use the CLI for development of the required metadata files.

 Is there a specific method you would like me to follow to get this fix
 (or something more appropriate) into the codebase?

 -chip


 Index: 
 apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java
 ===
 --- apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java 
   (revision
 1373827)
 +++ apache-whisker-cli/src/main/java/org/apache/creadur/whisker/cli/Main.java 
   (working
 copy)
 @@ -188,9 +188,13 @@
   */
  private boolean printHelp(String[] args) throws ParseException {
  final CommandLineOption help = CommandLineOption.PRINT_HELP;
 -return help.isSetOn(
 -parser().parse(new Options().addOption(
 -help.create()), args));
 +try {
 +   return help.isSetOn(
 +   parser().parse(new Options().addOption(
 +   help.create()), args));
 +} catch (ParseException e) {
 +   return false;
 +}
  }

  /**



Using a locally patched version (see above patch), I'm making good
progress with using Whisker.  Thanks for that goes to this community!

I do have two other Whisker CLI questions:

1 - How do I get a NOTICE output using the CLI?  Or do I have to use
Whisker as a Maven plugin.

2 - In the following example, the copyright notice is not being added
to the LICENSE file output:

Assume the ApacheLicenseVersion2 exists above this snippet.  Also
assume the org for Clinton Begin exists.

[snip...]
primary-license id='ApacheLicenseVersion2'
copyright-noticeCopyright (c) 2012 The Apache Software
Foundation/copyright-notice
/primary-license
organisations
organisation
id='apache.org'
name='The Apache Software Foundation'
url='http://www.apache.org/'/
organization
id='person:Clinton.Begin'
name='Clinton Begin'
url='http://code.google.com/p/mybatis/' /
/organisations
within dir='utils/src/com/cloud/utils/db'
with-license id='ApacheLicenseVersion2'
copyright-notice
Copyright (c) 2004 Clinton Begin
/copyright-notice
by-organization id=person:Clinton.Begin
resource name=ScriptRunner.java/
/by-organization
/with-license
/within
[snip...]

The relevant output is here:

Within the utils/src/com/cloud/utils/db directory
licensed under the Apache License, Version 2
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt  (as above)

As you can see, there's no copyright attribution for that resource.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer!

Question about using Rat and the potential to create accepted exceptions

2012-08-10 Thread Chip Childers 
Hi all,

I'm working with the CloudStack (Incubating) project to sort through
our licensing issues.  Specifically, we are using Rat to help us
identify source files with missing ASF license headers.

It's a great tool, so let me first extend my thanks to this community
for creating it!

I'm dealing with a situation now, where I'd like to be able to
configure Rat to have accepted exceptions.  An example of this is
that we are storing Debian packaging files in the repo.
Unfortunately, Debian packaging files for binary packages aren't
allowed to have any comments in them.  Other examples include keys,
certificates, etc...

Is there a method to tell Rat to exclude certain files in it's analysis?

Thanks in advance for any advice / direction / suggestions.

-chip