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.

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

Fix some licenses substitutions #583

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@orsinium
Copy link
Contributor

@orsinium orsinium commented Apr 18, 2018

Github use some substitutions in license text:

  • [year] -- current year.
  • [fullname] -- name of repository owner.

Apache 2.0 and ECL 2.0 licenses contains this wrong substitutions: [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]. Many people forget fix it manually. For example, yapf.

@orsinium
Copy link
Contributor Author

@orsinium orsinium commented Apr 18, 2018

I don't know why Travis CI build failed. All fails in "cc-by-4.0", not in edited files.

@orsinium
Copy link
Contributor Author

@orsinium orsinium commented Apr 18, 2018

I'm actualize CC-BY licenses names. Now Travis CI Build is passed

@mlinksva
Copy link
Contributor

@mlinksva mlinksva commented Apr 18, 2018

The text in the Apache 2.0 appendix is not intended to be substituted in LICENSE -- only when deployed in file headers. Related info, see #558

The CC names were corrected in SPDX license list 3.1 which was recently released, see spdx/license-list-XML#618 ... thanks for updating so that tests pass. I'll cherry-pick your fix in a new PR.

@waldyrious
Copy link
Contributor

@waldyrious waldyrious commented Jan 18, 2020

The text in the Apache 2.0 appendix is not intended to be substituted in LICENSE -- only when deployed in file headers. Related info, see #558

@mlinksva do you think it would be helpful to include that information in the usage notes / how to apply section for the Apache 2.0 license?

In particular, is it acceptable to omit the appendix from the license file? (That would be the opposite of #558, btw.) I'm asking because PDF.js, one of the example projects using this license, does so in their LICENSE file.

@mlinksva
Copy link
Contributor

@mlinksva mlinksva commented Jan 18, 2020

@waldyrious yes it is acceptable (and licensee accounts for that by stripping text after "end of terms and conditions"; a test).

I'm ambivalent about adding to the usage notes as I'd rather not cause people to think about modifying the license texts at all, but I could see doing it for Apache 2.0 given the occasional misunderstanding about use of the appendix as a license file. Feel free to make a PR.

@waldyrious
Copy link
Contributor

@waldyrious waldyrious commented Jan 19, 2020

Thanks for the clarification. I'll give it a shot.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants