On Aug 24 2014 7:35 AM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:06:00PM -0600, EBo wrote: >> Wouldn't it be just as effective that the license GPL-v2+, etc., be >> in >> the header? > > Short answer: Only if there were a simple automated check that each > commit properly maintained a license block. But that is infeasible, > while it is very feasible to always check signed-off-by.
This is something that I or someone could look into. It would be a good check as well. It is also not necessary that each change edit be tagged for checking license tags, but that each file be tagged. That can be set up as a regression test (with exceptions like Makefiles, etc.), and notify someone appropriate when a change of file status flips. > ... > > Perhaps you'd like to know more about the history of signed-off-by. > This seems to be a good presentation about where it came from and > where > it is going: > > > https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/slides/lfcs2013_rodriguez.pdf This addresses a deeper issue than just the (L)GPLv2+ licensing. I am not sure the "-s" switch will be enough, but it is a good start. Are you hoping to eventually provide a full chain of custody similar to slide 10 of alfcs2013_rodriguez.pdf? Similar to http://gerrit.googlecode.com (if you move to git)? I would see that as a good thing as long as it can be automated. I doubt that there is enough people willing to help maintain that otherwise (given EMC/LinuxCNC's history). EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
