Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Who said it wasn't compliant?
And I quote again:
==========
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm still cleaning up the license headers on trunk. Once we're
> all satisfied with the result and after we merge trunk to 4.2.0
> I plan to take your suggestion and solicit help from some good
> soul on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to run the tool for us (if we're still
> in incubation).
==========
If this is *just* about whether or not RAT has been run, that's different.
RAT is a tool to check FOR compliance, not the definition OF compliance.
But Martin's e-mail seemed to say that there are or were issues that he was
working on. Are they resolved? If resolved, fine.
> FWIW, I just ran RAT and stdcxx is fine. RAT is largely flagging the
> automated test suite files output as missing the licenses.
Thank you. So you are saying that the issues referred to by Martin have
been resolved? That was my question in the first place. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
