Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify dkregistry's License #143

Closed
dpeckett opened this issue Feb 1, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #164
Closed

Clarify dkregistry's License #143

dpeckett opened this issue Feb 1, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #164

Comments

@dpeckett
Copy link

dpeckett commented Feb 1, 2020

At current it appears the only available license information for this crate is in the cargo toml. This should be made more prominent (eg. a license file and headers in source files).
LalatenduMohanty added a commit to LalatenduMohanty/dkregistry-rs that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2020
@LalatenduMohanty
Issue camallo#143: Adding Apache Apache License version 2.0 to the re…
7669820 
…pository

Apache V2 and MIT is almost same with respect to licensing the code.
However Apache V2 is more verbose and used by ecosystem projects
like Cincinnati. Hence moving to only Apache V2

Signed-off-by: Lalatendu Mohanty <lmohanty@redhat.com>
LalatenduMohanty added a commit to LalatenduMohanty/dkregistry-rs that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2020
@LalatenduMohanty
Issue camallo#143: Adding Apache License version 2.0 to the repository
5d8e006 
Apache V2 and MIT is almost same with respect to licensing the code.
However Apache V2 is more verbose and used by ecosystem projects
like Cincinnati. Hence moving to only Apache V2

Signed-off-by: Lalatendu Mohanty <lmohanty@redhat.com>
@lucab lucab mentioned this issue Jul 9, 2020
Merged
@lucab
Copy link
Member

lucab commented Jul 9, 2020

Thanks for the report. Licensing is indeed as specified in the Cargo manifest, i.e. MIT or APL-2.0 at your option.

But it would indeed be better to make this more prominent. #164 is open to tackle that. No need for headers in each source file, a machine-readable COPYRIGHT file is fine enough.

@dpeckett dpeckett closed this as completed Jul 9, 2020
@dpeckett
Copy link
Author

dpeckett commented Jul 9, 2020

Thanks @lucab

@lucab lucab reopened this Jul 9, 2020
@lucab
Copy link
Member

lucab commented Jul 9, 2020

(keeping this open until #164 lands)

LalatenduMohanty added a commit to LalatenduMohanty/dkregistry-rs that referenced this issue Jul 13, 2020
@LalatenduMohanty
Issue camallo#143: Adding the license files and information to the RE…
b7f1480 
…ADME

Signed-off-by: Lalatendu Mohanty <lmohanty@redhat.com>
LalatenduMohanty added a commit to LalatenduMohanty/dkregistry-rs that referenced this issue Jul 13, 2020
@LalatenduMohanty
Issue camallo#143: Adding the license files and information to the RE…
201a06a 
…ADME

Signed-off-by: Lalatendu Mohanty <lmohanty@redhat.com>
@steveej steveej mentioned this issue Oct 7, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

docs: clarify licensing LalatenduMohanty/dkregistry-rs
2 participants
@lucab @dpeckett