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

Add in a LICENSE file. #66

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 30, 2022
Merged

Add in a LICENSE file. #66

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 30, 2022

Conversation

clalancette
Copy link
Collaborator

Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette clalancette@openrobotics.org

Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@openrobotics.org>
@clalancette
Copy link
Collaborator Author

CI:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@cottsay
Copy link
Member

cottsay commented Jun 28, 2022

The license text references a copyright holder, and I've typically seen the 3-clause BSD license include the copyright lines at the beginning. Is there a particular reason to omit it here?

Also enable the copyright ament lint checking.

Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@openrobotics.org>
@clalancette
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The license text references a copyright holder, and I've typically seen the 3-clause BSD license include the copyright lines at the beginning. Is there a particular reason to omit it here?

You bring up a good point, which caused me to examine a couple of different things.

First of all, the copyright checking in this package was disabled. That means we didn't even know if this file conformed to the LICENSE style as laid out in ament_copyright. I've now fixed that in 1fb1d3d .

The second thing I did was to check out what other BSD-style LICENSE files around our codebase looked like. To summarize, I found the following:

  1. LICENSE file that has no copyright holder, and no mention of "BSD License" at the top (like this PR): 4 repositories
  2. LICENSE file that has no copyright holder, but has a mention of "BSD License" at the top: 2 repositories
  3. LICENSE file that has copyright holders and a mention of "BSD License" at the top: 10 repositories

Apparently our linting accepts all 3 styles, so it is not a problem for linting. As for what it should look like, I actually think style 2 is the best, as it is a LICENSE file, not a copyright notice. That said, it looks like the bulk of what we have does include both the "BSD License" and the copyright holders, so I'll switch this one to go with the majority there.

Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalancette@openrobotics.org>
@cottsay cottsay mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2022
@clalancette
Copy link
Collaborator Author

CI again:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@clalancette clalancette merged commit 4a3bd1c into rolling Jun 30, 2022
@clalancette clalancette deleted the clalancette/ros2-add-license branch June 30, 2022 12:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants