Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 22, 2020. It is now read-only.
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 22, 2020. It is now read-only.

Using a single LICENSE file #2

Open

Description

@molnarg

I'd suggest using a single LICENSE file in the root directory instead of pasting the license in every file. Is there any reason to copy it around everywhere?

Activity

  1. axemclion commented on Feb 7, 2014

    @axemclion
    Contributor

    Given that this project does not have a license, what should we use ?
    We usually use Apache 2.0. @molnarg, @mnot, any preferences here ?

  2. molnarg commented on Feb 9, 2014

    @molnarg
    Author

    As far as I'm concerned, any permissive open source license works for this repo. However, I don't know if IETF requires some specific license for projects like this.

  3. mnot commented on Feb 9, 2014

    @mnot

    Checking into it now.

  4. mnot commented on Feb 14, 2014

    @mnot

    It's up to the WG. I'll suggest Apache 2.0 on-list.

  5. mnot commented on Feb 15, 2014

    @mnot

    Folks on-list seem to prefer Simplified BSD. If this causes heartache for any contributors, please speak up; I'd rather have the contribution.

  6. panarasi commented on Feb 17, 2014

    @panarasi
    Contributor

    @mnot, Simplified BSD aka BSD clause 2 will work for MS Open Tech.
    Wanted to check if the other contributor - @anbuelan is also ok with this. if he is, I will add the license file.

  7. molnarg commented on Feb 17, 2014

    @molnarg
    Author

    I'm also OK with relicensing my previous work on this.

  8. added a commit that references this issue on Feb 18, 2014
  9. panarasi commented on Feb 18, 2014

    @panarasi
    Contributor

    Working on a pull request for this.

  10. anbuelan commented on Feb 18, 2014

    @anbuelan
    Contributor

    BSD 2-clause is fine.

  11. added a commit that references this issue on Feb 19, 2014
  12. panarasi commented on Feb 19, 2014

    @panarasi
    Contributor

    @molnarg, how does the pull request look ?

    @anbuelan If you think the pull request it good, can you please accept it ?

  13. added a commit that references this issue on Feb 19, 2014
  14. molnarg commented on Feb 24, 2014

    @molnarg
    Author

    Looks good to me.

  15. mnot commented on Feb 25, 2014

    @mnot

    See my comments there. Common practice is to do something like:

    //Copyright (c) Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. See LICENSE.txt for licensing information.

    in the files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions