On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 23:01 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/14/2012 10:39 PM, Josh Heidenreich wrote:
Do we need licence blocks in a README? Can we just write the licence in
on all pages generated by the script?
My (naive?) take on it is that, technically, all the files committed to
the git repo are "source files" that should have a legal header.
I think that's rather an over-conservative approach ;-)
Certainly, everything that is included in the end-product needs
cast-iron legal provenance, but the excessive and un-necessary presence
of legal boiler-plate everywhere makes this horribly ugly IMHO.
That's particularly true for a few lines of README, committed by people
who have made broad licensing commitments anyway :-) And even more
particularly when using source code licenses for things that are not
source code ;-)
Personally, seeing that hideous Oracle (C) and vast ugly license block
intruding into our world, I'm tempted to junk and re-write the text from
scratch to avoid having that stuff borking up our nice new, clean README
system :-) If we want to retain the text, we could move that README away
again I think.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Context
- Re: New tool for better understanding the codebase, to complement the wiki. (continued)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.