You are cunning. Or maybe configure my editor to auto hide (fold?) such gubbins?
But sadly I don't think I can justify the time to ingulge in such appealing
trickery. A ten second Awk invocation it will be, followed by 'make release'.
Jonathan Hartley
http://tartley.com
Daniel Pope wrote:
>Ma
Maybe you could omit license headers in your repo, but add them when
building the sdist?
On 9 September 2013 20:57, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> Thanks for all the input, people.
>
> FWIW, The folks downstream said their motivation was the continual
> difficulty of automatically checking for accep
Thanks for all the input, people.
FWIW, The folks downstream said their motivation was the continual difficulty
of automatically checking for acceptable licenses on the many bits of
(allegedly) FOSS they use. They have 4k of filenames that the license checker
can't currently account for, and re
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:14 +0100, Daniel Pope wrote:
> You don't have to include a notice of copyright to enjoy copyright
> protection (under the Berne Convention). Nothing is assumed to be public
> domain unless it is explicitly disclaimed as such.
>
> Since licence terms are based on copyright
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:13 +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source
> available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license,
> so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such
> people. Am I
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 14:18 +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in Chromium,
> because I've had a bug report from them that my source files (plural)
> fail their build-time license checker.
>
> They'd like me to include a license and copyr
Yes you are right, however quoting the adage; explicit is better then
implicit :-)
To be honest, I find it rather strange that someone who likes to use your
code is dictating you what to do, me being a contractor would reply with:
Sure I'll do that for you, that is then X£ please, if you are not ha
You don't have to include a notice of copyright to enjoy copyright
protection (under the Berne Convention). Nothing is assumed to be public
domain unless it is explicitly disclaimed as such.
Since licence terms are based on copyright I don't think you need to state
it everywhere. If someone fails
Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source
available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license,
so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such
people. Am I wrong?
Jonathan
On 09/09/13 14:30, Martin P. Hellwig wrote
On 9 Sep 2013, at 14:42, Harry Percival wrote:
> Not in dunderinits though, surely?
Well, if you don't then surely someone might copy your blank file and pass it
off as their own and rob you of your IP revenue ;)
-Matt
--
Matt Hamilton, Technical Director
Netsight Internet Solutions Limited
The (il-)logic of trying to apply copyright statements to an otherwise
empty file should be weighed against the effort of writing a syntax checker
that can ignore such files.
Generally, it's easier to script these things, so having a script that
blindly adds the copyright header to all python file
It is normal practice to include a brief license statement in every
source file, to make it clear what precisely is under the terms of that
license.
Cheers,
Doug.
On 09/09/13 14:18, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in
Chromium, because I'v
I <3 Colorama.
Copyright is quite dull.
Colors in terminal programs are awesome.
On 9 September 2013 14:42, Harry Percival wrote:
> Not in dunderinits though, surely?
>
>
> On 9 September 2013 14:30, Gilberto Gonçalves wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to p
Not in dunderinits though, surely?
On 9 September 2013 14:30, Gilberto Gonçalves wrote:
> I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to put the
> license in all the source files but I believe
> that putting at least a header in each of the files as well as a full
> License file in
I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to put the license
in all the source files but I believe
that putting at least a header in each of the files as well as a full
License file in the root of your project is the
best way to do it.
Check this:
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resource
I concur, you do not have to put the full license text in it, a reference
to it is fine.
The logic behind that request is that some files may be seen out of context
of the project (as there is no reference), without having a license
attached the file can be legally misrepresented as being public do
On 9 September 2013 14:18, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source file
> (including empty __init__.py files).
I have had this with big companies before, long ago. It may actually
be sufficient to have one line saying something like...
"C
A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in Chromium,
because I've had a bug report from them that my source files (plural)
fail their build-time license checker.
They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source
file (including empty __init__.py files).
18 matches
Mail list logo
