On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > If > there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a > another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very > important part in the process.
There's also an SPDX spec coming to describe the licensing in products; I could see RAT being very useful there as an automatic checker against some standard approve/no-approve/exception-list rule set. > The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an > independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current > committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we > have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The > only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project. TLP and PMC are technically different questions. An option would be for a RAT PMC, but to make its web presence part of Infra or Legal committees. > But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT > committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the > drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that > I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID > again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from > the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes. > > WDYT? +0. I wouldn't want to keep the separate list, package name seems fine. Commons is a fair choice. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
