dion gillard
added a comment - Looks incomplete AFAICT.
From the top level directory several files were missing license info:
build-bootstrap.xml
checkstyle.xml
gump.xml
maven.xml
plugins-site.xml
project.properties
project.xml
release.xml
xdocs/ is missing it too.
Maybe there are others too.
is it documented on which file types it must be included? Is it anything that eventually gets executed? In that case, all the plugin.jelly's etc need it too.
Brett Porter
added a comment - is it documented on which file types it must be included? Is it anything that eventually gets executed? In that case, all the plugin.jelly's etc need it too.
"Yes. All source files should include the copyright notice boilerplate that indicates it is owned by the ASF and that it is distributed under the Apache License, Version 2.0."
In recent discussions on commons-dev, I asked specifically about build files and xdocs etc, and Craig McClanahan came back with the response that all source files needed a license, and the only exception that was offered as an example was the MANIFEST.MF (which has no comment facility). Another would be test data that doesn't include comments.
dion gillard
added a comment - Yep, it is documented.
See http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
"Yes. All source files should include the copyright notice boilerplate that indicates it is owned by the ASF and that it is distributed under the Apache License, Version 2.0."
In recent discussions on commons-dev, I asked specifically about build files and xdocs etc, and Craig McClanahan came back with the response that all source files needed a license, and the only exception that was offered as an example was the MANIFEST.MF (which has no comment facility). Another would be test data that doesn't include comments.
dion gillard
added a comment - There are scripts that do a whole load of them for you.
For Jelly, I used the perl script with a few mods.
Look in committer/relicense if you haven't already.
Bug
Closed
Major
Done on core and plugins