I did a little poking around in Google, and I wasn't able to find much discussion about having the license in the files vs. out of it, how you're supposed to refer to a license in another file, etc. Do you guys know how that's supposed to work? Does anybody have an opinion or information on the pros/cons of moving the licenses out?
What I've gathered so far is that putting the license in the file has the advantage of making it harder to disassociate the two since you have to purposefully chop up a file to take the license out. If we were to do that, we'd probably want to leave in the copyright holder, the copyright date range, a reference to the file with the license text, and maybe a brief mention of m5 and m5sim.org in case the file ends up on its own in the wild somewhere. Also, even superficial changes to how we're handling licenses like this might need to make the rounds with the lawyer types in all the organizations involved. Gabe On 02/14/11 21:35, Gabe Black wrote: > Yeah, that would probably be overkill to do at build time. It would > probably be useful for initially extracting licenses to put in a > LICENSES directory though. > > Gabe > > On 02/14/11 13:12, nathan binkert wrote: >> I do have code that can parse source files to extract licenses. We >> could write a script that sucks out all of the licenses automatically >> (collapsing common pieces as necessary). Seems like it could be >> overkill though. >> >> Nate >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Gabe Black <gbl...@eecs.umich.edu >> <mailto:gbl...@eecs.umich.edu>> wrote: >> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/486/ >> >> >> On February 14th, 2011, 6:48 a.m., *Nathan Binkert* wrote: >> >> LICENSE >> >> <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/486/diff/1/?file=10325#file10325line1> >> (Diff revision 1) >> >> 1 >> >> Copyright (c) 2000-2008 The Regents of The University of Michigan >> >> 1 >> >> Copyright (c) 2000-2011 The Regents of The University of Michigan >> >> Should we put everyone in here? (And all licenses?) >> >> On February 14th, 2011, 7:58 a.m., *Ali Saidi* wrote: >> >> I think we should as most of the license text says in, "source >> and binary forms." The LICENSE file gets sucked into the simulator as a >> string and can be printed with a command line parameter, so it probably >> should have all of them. >> >> That would tie back into my idea of having a directory for all the >> different licenses which could then all be sucked in and output together. I >> didn't want to mess with the license stuff too much in this change since >> IANAL and I'm sure there will be some diversity of opinion here. >> >> >> - Gabe >> >> >> On February 13th, 2011, 11:47 p.m., Gabe Black wrote: >> >> Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve >> Reinhardt, and Nathan Binkert. >> By Gabe Black. >> >> /Updated 2011-02-13 23:47:40/ >> >> >> Description >> >> Info: Clean up some info files. >> >> Get rid of RELEASE_NOTES since we no longer do releases, update some of >> the >> information in README, and update the date in LICENSE. >> >> >> Diffs >> >> * LICENSE (e8f4bb35dca9) >> * README (e8f4bb35dca9) >> * RELEASE_NOTES (e8f4bb35dca9) >> * src/SConscript (e8f4bb35dca9) >> * src/python/m5/main.py (e8f4bb35dca9) >> >> View Diff <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/486/diff/> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> m5-dev@m5sim.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
