What specific files? The problem that I have is with adding license headers to template files is that it *may* imply that the developer's app must be APL 2.0, these typically are 'sample' files and the user is expected to change them ... but expecting them to remove a license header as their first change is kinda weird.
@purplecabbage risingj.com On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > We should add license headers. > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Tim Barham <tim.bar...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > Currently these files are flagged by RAT. We should either add license > > headers or exclude them (from RAT) to clean up the noise. They're small > > pieces of template code used by plugman. The Apache rules for whether a > > file needs to have a license header [1] specifies: > > > > > What files in an Apache release do not require a license header? > > > A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements > or > > > its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file > > > does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the > > > file's creativity, add the license header to the file. > > > > I don't think it could be argued that these files have *no* creativity > > what-so-ever, so perhaps we should add license headers? > > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > > >
