Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Jan, hi Jürgen,

as I wrote, license headers in
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project

are indeed missing. They were not included in the patch. They are no 
real binaries, but xml-files.
Do they need a license at all? I see other .classpath or .project files 
listed in rat-excludes.



But the files

main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs

are listed in 
https://svn-master.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/rat-excludes

So I do not know, why the Rat Report reports missing licenses for them.

Is there a problem having a dot in the name of a subdirectory? Or is 
there an error in the way how they are listed in rat-excludes?


Kind regards
Regina

jan i schrieb:

Hi.

Newest rat report still shows the same 6 files as being a problem.


http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html


rgds
jan i.


On 18 June 2015 at 20:19, jan i  wrote:


Thanks for applying the patch.

I will check the next RAT-Scan to see if the files sill appear.

rgds
jan I.


On 18 June 2015 at 19:36, Regina Henschel  wrote:


Hi Jan,

jan i schrieb:


HI.

did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that
are
a problem (a probably should be deleted):

Unapproved Licenses:

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath

/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project



I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains
the lines
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml

and
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml

so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not
notice the consequence.

The files

main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
+main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs

should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit
message of r1684976.

Kind regards
Regina




rgds
jan i.


On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

  On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:



On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel 


wrote:



  Hi Jürgen,


is it OK to commit the patch?

  if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was



committed


in the first place.

If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files


in


trunk without the proper
ALv2 license.

Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.

I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have


sideeffects.





No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
explained before these files are part of the started but currently
stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...

Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
OOXML parsing ...

Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
filtered out as some other things as well.

Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
clean for future purpose.

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org







-

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[jan i]

Hi.

Newest rat report still shows the same 6 files as being a problem.


http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html


rgds
jan i.


On 18 June 2015 at 20:19, jan i  wrote:

> Thanks for applying the patch.
>
> I will check the next RAT-Scan to see if the files sill appear.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> On 18 June 2015 at 19:36, Regina Henschel  wrote:
>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> jan i schrieb:
>>
>>> HI.
>>>
>>> did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that
>>> are
>>> a problem (a probably should be deleted):
>>>
>>> Unapproved Licenses:
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
>>>
>>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
>>>
>>
>> I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains
>> the lines
>> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
>> ===
>> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
>> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
>> ===
>> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
>> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>>
>> and
>> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
>> ===
>> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
>> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
>> ===
>> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
>> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>>
>> so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not
>> notice the consequence.
>>
>> The files
>>
>> main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>> +main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>>
>> should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit
>> message of r1684976.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
>>
>>
>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan i.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:

> On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel 
>
 wrote:

>
>  Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> is it OK to commit the patch?
>>
>>  if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was
>
 committed

> in the first place.
>
> If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files
>
 in

> trunk without the proper
> ALv2 license.
>
> Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.
>
> I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have
>
 sideeffects.

>
>
 No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
 explained before these files are part of the started but currently
 stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...

 Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
 simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
 would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
 OOXML parsing ...

 Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
 filtered out as some other things as well.

 Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
 clean for future purpose.

 Juergen


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



>>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[jan i]

Thanks for applying the patch.

I will check the next RAT-Scan to see if the files sill appear.

rgds
jan I.


On 18 June 2015 at 19:36, Regina Henschel  wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> jan i schrieb:
>
>> HI.
>>
>> did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that are
>> a problem (a probably should be deleted):
>>
>> Unapproved Licenses:
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
>>
>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
>>
>
> I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains the
> lines
> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
> ===
> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
> svn:mime-type = application/xml
> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
> ===
> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>
> and
> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
> ===
> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
> svn:mime-type = application/xml
> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
> ===
> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
> svn:mime-type = application/xml
>
> so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not
> notice the consequence.
>
> The files
>
> main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
> +main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
>
> should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit
> message of r1684976.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
>
>> rgds
>> jan i.
>>
>>
>> On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>  On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:
>>>
 On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel 

>>> wrote:
>>>

  Hi Jürgen,
>
> is it OK to commit the patch?
>
>  if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was

>>> committed
>>>
 in the first place.

 If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files

>>> in
>>>
 trunk without the proper
 ALv2 license.

 Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.

 I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have

>>> sideeffects.
>>>


>>> No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
>>> explained before these files are part of the started but currently
>>> stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...
>>>
>>> Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
>>> simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
>>> would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
>>> OOXML parsing ...
>>>
>>> Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
>>> filtered out as some other things as well.
>>>
>>> Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
>>> clean for future purpose.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Jan,

jan i schrieb:

HI.

did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that are
a problem (a probably should be deleted):

Unapproved Licenses:
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project


I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains 
the lines

Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml

and
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml
Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
===
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/xml

so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not 
notice the consequence.


The files
main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
+main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs 

should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit 
message of r1684976.


Kind regards
Regina



rgds
jan i.


On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:


On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:

On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel 

wrote:



Hi Jürgen,

is it OK to commit the patch?


if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was

committed

in the first place.

If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files

in

trunk without the proper
ALv2 license.

Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.

I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have

sideeffects.




No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
explained before these files are part of the started but currently
stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...

Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
OOXML parsing ...

Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
filtered out as some other things as well.

Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
clean for future purpose.

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[jan i]

HI.

did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that are
a problem (a probably should be deleted):

Unapproved Licenses:
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project

rgds
jan i.


On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:
> > On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jürgen,
> >>
> >> is it OK to commit the patch?
> >>
> > if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was
> committed
> > in the first place.
> >
> > If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files
> in
> > trunk without the proper
> > ALv2 license.
> >
> > Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.
> >
> > I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have
> sideeffects.
> >
>
> No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
> explained before these files are part of the started but currently
> stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...
>
> Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
> simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
> would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
> OOXML parsing ...
>
> Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
> filtered out as some other things as well.
>
> Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
> clean for future purpose.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> is it OK to commit the patch?
>>
> if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was committed
> in the first place.
> 
> If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files in
> trunk without the proper
> ALv2 license.
> 
> Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.
> 
> I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have sideeffects.
> 

No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I
explained before these files are part of the started but currently
stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ...

Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were
simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that
would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for
OOXML parsing ...

Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be
filtered out as some other things as well.

Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more
clean for future purpose.

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[jan i]

On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel  wrote:

> Hi Jürgen,
>
> is it OK to commit the patch?
>
if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was committed
in the first place.

If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files in
trunk without the proper
ALv2 license.

Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files.

I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have sideeffects.

rgds
jan i.


>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>
>  On 06/05/15 14:45, jan i wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi All,

 http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html

 shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers
 adding.

 A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license
 Headers
 in all of those files.

 If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.

  I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I
>>> wonder
>>> what happened, because I know a couple of these files used
>>> to have ALv2. I will take a look at "svn log" later.
>>>
>>> The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we
>>> make a
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> Patches are welcome.
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> the files were from a new project that is currently stalled, I believe
>> the headers were simply forgotten. They are not part of the office yet
>> and if they are in the source tarball it is just a mistake.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Jürgen,

is it OK to commit the patch?

Kind regards
Regina

Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:

On 06/05/15 14:45, jan i wrote:

On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald  wrote:


Hi All,

http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html

shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding.

A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license
Headers
in all of those files.

If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.


I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I wonder
what happened, because I know a couple of these files used
to have ALv2. I will take a look at "svn log" later.

The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we make a
distribution.

Patches are welcome.
rgds
jan I.




the files were from a new project that is currently stalled, I believe
the headers were simply forgotten. They are not part of the office yet
and if they are in the source tarball it is just a mistake.

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[PATCH] - Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Gavin McDonald]

Hi All,

Following on from this then I decided to add License headers to all but two of 
the
30 files, the remainder having entries in the rat-excludes file, so this patch
attached should clear up our RAT report as it stands.

Below is a svn st list of modified files and please find attached a patch.

HTH

Gav…

—

M   main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.classpath
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.project
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/ContentType.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/ContentTypes.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/IReferenceProvider.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/OOXMLPackage.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/Package.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/Part.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/PartManager.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/PartManagerPrototype.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/PartName.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/RelatedParts.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/RelationshipType.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/parser/ContentTypesParser.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/parser/ParserFactory.java
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/framework/part/parser/RelationshipParser.java
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.classpath
M   main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.project
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/schema/generator/html/code.js
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/schema/generator/html/display.css
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/schema/generator/html/linking-template.html
M   
main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/src/org/apache/openoffice/ooxml/schema/generator/html/template.html
M   main/rat-excludes




rat-license.patch
Description: Binary data


> On 7 May 2015, at 8:06 am, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> On 06/05/15 14:45, jan i wrote:
>> On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html
>>> 
>>> shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding.
>>> 
>>> A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license
>>> Headers
>>> in all of those files.
>>> 
>>> If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.
>>> 
>> I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I wonder
>> what happened, because I know a couple of these files used
>> to have ALv2. I will take a look at "svn log" later.
>> 
>> The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we make a
>> distribution.
>> 
>> Patches are welcome.
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>> 
> 
> 
> the files were from a new project that is currently stalled, I believe
> the headers were simply forgotten. They are not part of the office yet
> and if they are in the source tarball it is just a mistake.
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 06/05/15 14:45, jan i wrote:
> On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald  wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>>
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html
>>
>> shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding.
>>
>> A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license
>> Headers
>> in all of those files.
>>
>> If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.
>>
> I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I wonder
> what happened, because I know a couple of these files used
> to have ALv2. I will take a look at "svn log" later.
> 
> The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we make a
> distribution.
> 
> Patches are welcome.
> rgds
> jan I.
> 


the files were from a new project that is currently stalled, I believe
the headers were simply forgotten. They are not part of the office yet
and if they are in the source tarball it is just a mistake.

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[jan i]

On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html
>
> shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding.
>
> A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license
> Headers
> in all of those files.
>
> If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.
>
I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I wonder
what happened, because I know a couple of these files used
to have ALv2. I will take a look at "svn log" later.

The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we make a
distribution.

Patches are welcome.
rgds
jan I.


>
> HTH
>
> Gav…
>
>
>

[RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header

[Gavin McDonald]

Hi All,

http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html 


shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding.

A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license Headers
in all of those files.

If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect.

HTH

Gav…




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail