Fix #433, Release Prep #434
Conversation
jphickey
left a comment
jphickey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confirmed successful build, unit test of CFE. Approved pending the one comment about the license file.
| same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier | ||
| identification within third-party archives. | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be filled in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I just used GitHub's default hoping it would get recognized and labeled appropriately. I'll test and fill in (trying out in app repos first).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Upon second look at that license that whole lower part is just informational instructions on what to put into source files. Perhaps that whole "appendix" part needs to be removed if GSFC requires something more specific in the source files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another good point. Given that I'd like to leave the LICENSE file as is (any changes can raise concern that it's a modified version of the license). I do get specific text that I need to put in the source files, which I think meets the intent of the LICENSE.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK - I concur on leaving LICENSE file exactly as-is.
But then - concern is whether having a different boilerplate comment atop each of the source files is still compliant with the LICENSE - that is, whether the standard apache 2.0 license actually requires to put that exact boilerplate on every source file or if it is just a recommendation. The wording sounded very specific to me, but it is in an informational appendix not part of the license itself. And I am not a lawyer...
Fix #433, Release Prep Document and copyright header changes only
Describe the contribution
Fix #433
Testing performed
Expected behavior changes
System(s) tested on:
Contributor Info
Jacob Hageman - NASA/GSFC