Hi,
> These are both in tadpole and larva. Are you suggesting moving these prior
> to release?
Well it a little confusion as at first I though there was other Apache licensed
software bundled and if that is you then need to look up their NOTICE files to
see if that effects ours. Totally up
Hi Justin,
These are both in tadpole and larva. Are you suggesting moving these
prior to release?
Also: I've updated tadpole with the latest license changes, so re your
previous mail, that should be fixed.
newtvm.exe is also removed from the newt distribution.
Sterling
On 2/20/16 9:00
Hi,
Also a few extra LICENSE file sin tadpole?
./hw/bsp/native/LICENSE
./libs/os/LICENSE
./libs/testutil/LICENSE
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
I’m still noticing a few files with multiple license headers in tadpole:
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m0/m0/HAL_CM0.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m0/m0/SVC_Table.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m4/m4/HAL_CM4.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m4/m4/SVC_Table.s
./libs/os/src/os_mbuf.c
./libs/util/src/base64.c
HI,
> OK, I believe I have removed the Apache license from all the
> "otherwise-licensed" files, and added corresponding pointers to the
> larva LICENSE file.
Still missing a few things I’ll add them.
> Larva's LICENSE file has become quite a monster, I’m afraid.
Yep but I’ve seen worse. It's
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:40:40AM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> I think the LICENSE is still missing a number of things, do you look
> at my email when I went through the repos and listed what was
> contained in them? I know things have changed a little in
> tadpole/larval repos but everythink
Hi,
> OK, thanks for the heads up. Is this something we should deal with
> immediately, or can we fix it between now and our next release?
Best to fix now IMO, otherwise the incubator release may not pass. I’d say the
risk is low but it’s there. That being said an incubating release doesn’t
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:05:58AM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > The rest of them are from files which contain the Apache license text at
> > the top of the file. In these files, we retained the original copyright
> > notice below the Apache license. Do you think this is problematic?
>
>
Hi,
> The rest of them are from files which contain the Apache license text at
> the top of the file. In these files, we retained the original copyright
> notice below the Apache license. Do you think this is problematic?
That's incorrect.while you can license the whole as Apache, each file
Thanks a lot for looking at this, Justin.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:16:22PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Newt repo still has:
> ./.git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample
I believe this file is not actually in the repository. When a git repo
is cloned, the .git directory is populated with the contents of
Hi,
I’m not 100% sure what’s in the release files but from a quick look (rushing
out t the door) I’m guessing it still needs a tiny bit of work:
Newt repo still has:
./.git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample
And a number of files (mostly .go files) still have "Copyright 2015 Runtime
Inc.”
Larval has a
11 matches
Mail list logo
