Updated LICENSE file
Details
none - visual check
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rLTRN libtaskotron
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Unit Tests Skipped
I'm fine with it as it is, even though I'd personally rather rely on file headers exclusively where possible instead of maintaining a list of them.
| LICENSE | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Maybe this would be clearer?
| |
| 5–7 | I wonder if we want to manually keep this list, because with the first rename this will get out of sync. I checked generate_directive_docs.py and GPL3 license header is present there. It can also be put into rst.j2 as comment. Wouldn't it be easier to have this explicit listing approach just for files which don't support header comments, and use license header in the rest? If somebody wants to use parts of our project, they need to look at the file headers anyway (this is always required e.g. for new package reviews in Fedora). So we don't save them any work by providing this list here. But if there's a disparity between file header and this file, then it's a problem. The fewer explicit file names here, the less manual work and maintenance, the fewer errors. | |
I'm not sure whether my comments were spotted or not, but at least the proposed change on line 2 would guard us a bit against an outdated file list - people would be advised to look into those particular files, not just here.
@kparal, I've created a revision for your comment on line 2 (D173). I just pushed because we were time crunched so @tflink could build and do the release. I made a note about following up on them though :)
I fully expect the manual list to not be there forever, but it doesn't hurt to have it there now. The directives doc code shouldn't be changing much from here on out - and if we add other GPLv3 code down the line we can remove these lines then and rely only on headers (provided that's an ok thing to rely on, legally speaking).
Maybe this would be clearer?