We should add license headers. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Tim Barham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Currently these files are flagged by RAT. We should either add license > headers or exclude them (from RAT) to clean up the noise. They're small > pieces of template code used by plugman. The Apache rules for whether a > file needs to have a license header [1] specifies: > > > What files in an Apache release do not require a license header? > > A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or > > its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file > > does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the > > file's creativity, add the license header to the file. > > I don't think it could be argued that these files have *no* creativity > what-so-ever, so perhaps we should add license headers? > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > > Tim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
