Hi, Regarding License header check on PRs, how can we include exceptions? For example, graphql schema files. https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/2166/files#diff-30fa722ec7a5efd9e20355fb704849691aea2fde8cea85af1a0ec0848e0de628 https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/actions/runs/12423080843/job/34685997897?pr=2166
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:37 PM Jozef Marko <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Toshiya > > I started to do the same check for apps and tools. Sharing status in the > same way as you did, in the same github ticket. > > > > Jozef Marko > > Software Developer > > [email protected] > > > > ________________________________ > From: Toshiya Kobayashi <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2024 10:47 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [HEADS UP] License check > > Thank you very much for the big efforts on those PRs. > > I have started reviewing source codes from the "Category X or Category B" > blocker point of view. > > I posted my progress as > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1634 comments. > > So far, I don't see a blocker in drools, optaplanner, kogito-runtimes (one > suggestion for 10.0.x though). > > More eyes would be welcome. Especially kogito-apps and kie-tools, which I > haven't looked at yet. > > Cheers, > Toshiya > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:03 AM Jozef Marko <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello everyone, let me share the status of this topic. > > > > I think currently the initiative has two main parts that are in active > > state: > > > > 1. > > automate the license headers checking in the Apache KIE upstream codebase > > 2. > > ensure the licensing info is correct, mainly in LICENSE and NOTICE files > > > > For both points we have separate tickets: > > > > 1. > > Ticket #1613 [1], where you can see a list of pull request for main and > > 10.0.x branches. these pull requests introduce new github action "Check > > license headers" for each repository > > 2. > > Ticket #1634 [2], where we want to be sure, licensing info we have in > > codebase is correct, and it is not in conflict with the Apache rules > > > > Unfortunately, both points are very related. So the pull requests for the > > point (1. - Ticket #1613) touch also the LICENSE and NOTICE files, that > are > > main subject of the point (2. - Ticket #1634) > > > > I am sorry for this. I did my best to split the work as much as possible. > > > > So basically the point (1. - Ticket #1613) is done, we just need reviews > > and merge of created pull request for main and 10.0.x. > > > > From my point of view once such pull request are merged, we can finish > the > > point (2. - Ticket #1634). > > > > > > Thank you everyone, who helped me as reviewer on github as support in > > private conversations, ... . Thank you all! > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1613 > > > > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1634 > > > > > > Jozef Marko > > > > Software Developer > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Toshiya Kobayashi <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:11 AM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [HEADS UP] License check > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3130 > (Merged) > > > > for optaplanner, it's good to look at this PR now: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3144 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 3:55 PM Toshiya Kobayashi < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think every committer needs to be aware of the requirements, because > > > this topic always matters while we maintain source codes. > > > > > > Per discussion > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/nrq50szwx37doopb23wyq33v0t3bbccg , > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-469 > > > `3rd party Category X or Category B bundled code licenses not listed in > > > LICENSE` is the one major blocker of the 10.0.0 release. > > > > > > It means, if we have Category X or Category B licensed source code, we > > > have to list the file path and its license in the `LICENSE` file at > this > > > stage. (Eventually, we will need to remove them before incubator > > graduation) > > > > > > "Category" is explained here: > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > > > > > In the discussion, 2 cases were highlighted. > > > > > > - > > > > > > `./incubator-kie-tools/packages/stunner-editors/errai-common/src/main/java/org/jboss/errai/common/compat/javax/annotation/processing/Generated.java`, > > > which is dual licensed --- CDDL (Category B) or GPL (Category X). > > > -> For main, it's handled by > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2746 , but make > > sure > > > that it's resolved in 10.0.0 build. > > > > > > - `incubator-kie-drools/drools-docs/supplemental-ui/js/search-ui.js`, > > > which is MPL (Category B). > > > -> We will exclude `drools-docs` from the source distribution. > > > > > > However, there may be more cases. We need to scrutinize all source > codes > > > to find source codes with licenses missing in the `LICENSE` file. > > > > > > I filed a GH issue for this with the steps to check. > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1634 > > > > > > I have done the check for drools. For other repos, the following PRs > > > are/were fixing license issues. > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3130 > (Merged) > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/pull/3714 > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/2111 > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2746 > > > > > > I think all these PRs made good progress (might fix all issues), but it > > > would be great if more people review from this point of view. > > > > > > Alex might start rc4 build, so new findings may not be in time for rc4, > > > but it should be good to proceed the work. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Toshiya > > > > > >
