On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, >> .hpp, .py. .cpp files) > > That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether > they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the licensing BSD > headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner). Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there. Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are a can of worms. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this particular issue should block a release. If there were no headers there to begin with, there's nothing illegal as far as I can tell -- it's just that information about the licensing isn't being conveyed as well as it could be to consumers for a fairly large number of files. > Thus I noted this following in LICENSE: > =========================================================== > The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License > header, should be assumed to be coming from previous life of MADlib as a > BSD licensed project and is available under the following license: > =========================================================== Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with legal-discuss), something to the effect of... /* This file is available under a BSD-3-clause license -- see LICENSE */ Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
