Cleanup mislabeled BSD license #37
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks strange to me that these files are licensed BSD? I'm not sure why, maybe @dirk-thomas can comment, since they were added in #25?
| // * Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its | ||
| // contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from | ||
| // this software without specific prior written permission. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not having // here looks wrong to me.
#25 is only a redo of #4. And in these patches only the license of the visibility macros is BSD (see https://github.com/ros2/rcpputils/pull/25/files#diff-974160601a417a6b78e21e73844e59f3). I think that file can safely be changed to Apache. I haven't looked at the other cases. |
|
@tfoote is the expectation that the lint check here will pass when ament/ament_lint#209 is merged? In what order should things get merged? |
|
This should pass with ament/ament_lint#205 it should land before ament/ament_lint#209 causes it to fail. |
|
@tfoote are the changes in the licenses still need it? I think the copyright test is passing in master, right ? But the change in the |
Signed-off-by: Tully Foote <[email protected]>
clalancette
force-pushed
the
bsd3clause_fixup
branch
from
efc475b
to
216d9be
Compare
|
@ahcorde This change is still needed to update the license from "BSD License 2.0" (which doesn't really exist) to the proper BSD 3-Clause. The license wording doesn't change, only the formatting and what we call it. Thus, I think this is still needed. Another review pass would be appreciated. Thanks! |
|
CI:
|
This was propagated due to an invalid license in ament_lint which is proposed to be fixed at: ament/ament_lint#209