[infra] license cleanup, refs #279 #294
Conversation
LICENSE
Outdated
| @@ -1,27 +1,27 @@ | |||
| Copyright 2017 Open Source Robotics Foundation | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018, Toyota Research Institute. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about this, but shouldn't the date be 2017, as that is when the work on this codebase started?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, should at least cover the starting date of contributions and I expect 2017-2018 is more accurate, though that doesn't seem to be a large bone of contention. Since the sensitivity to the last date is in the order of a lifetime I'm not inclined to worry about updating that every year.
I left that mostly because I copied it rather wholesale from ignition libraries. But it is fairly minor, so I think it would be OK to make it like the rest. Of course, CI is unhappy because cpplint expects a copyright line in every file. We could disable that warning in our cpplint, but like I've said before, I would actually prefer to keep the license header at the top of the files, since that seems to be best practice. A change of just the copyright from OSRF -> TRI would also be a much smaller PR :). |
|
Just found some recommendations about file-scope and centralised conventions I wasn't aware of here: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html Perhaps following the minimum effort conventions here should guide this, with a secondary thought to keeping tools like cpplint happy so we don't drift into a custom universe. |
stonier
force-pushed
the
stonier/license
branch
3 times, most recently
from
c77495b to
58c65f7
Compare
|
@clalancette made some final changes. Per file scope to match TRI driving and keep cpplint happy and centralised for the LICENSE. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, looks OK to me. No copyright specified at all on the scripts and protobuf files looks a little weird to me, but I'll let @stonier be the final arbiter on whether those need it or not.
backend/launcher.py
Outdated
| # | ||
| # 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, | ||
| # this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. | ||
| #!/usr/bin/env python |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor, but we are specifying /usr/bin/env python2.7 everywhere else. Probably stick with that to be consistent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was wondering about that. Saw a mix in the couple of files I saw. @basicNew are we locked onto 2.7 due to pybind11 being linked against 2.7?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a while we were locked into 2.7 due to the python LCM bindings that were coming from drake. Now that we aren't using LCM anymore, there is some possibility that we might be able to move to Python 3. But @basicNew will know better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, #158 was created to track that. I'll follow up on that issue.
stonier
force-pushed
the
stonier/license
branch
from
3436e56 to
4e90525
Compare
stonier
force-pushed
the
stonier/license
branch
from
4e90525 to
1827244
Compare
Left off of the build files / CI scripts. Code is automagically covered by copyright, so the comments mostly serve as a convenience. No rocket science in these, nor do we distribute them. |
Keeping it simple stupid.
Rather wholesale cleanout, including some drake licenses (which will get fixed when we send them back to drake) and an odd apache license for backend/system.h?
I made sure to leave the gtest source licenses in.