License builder tool #4194
License builder tool #4194
Conversation
rvagg
force-pushed
the
license-builder
branch
from
478bd1e
to
bcd212a
Compare
|
renamed "C-Ares" to "c-ares", realised that I can't find reference to that capitalisation on the internet |
mscdex
added
the
meta
|
Rubber stamp LGTM |
|
@nodejs/ctc anyone want to weigh in here? the work here is for consistency (lots of variation in how licenses are introduced and presented) and completeness (some are missing) with a bit of reordering according to the grouping above. I haven't touched the top bit, leaving that for when we finally get legal advice on it but tbh I'm not holding my breath for that happening. Once we have a tool in place, we can adjust it according to any official advice we get from lawyers. |
|
Nothing further really. Let's get the PR landed and get the tool in place, we can tweak and iterate from there. |
|
rubber-stamp lgtm |
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
rvagg
force-pushed
the
license-builder
branch
from
bcd212a
to
d91646b
Compare
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
|
Landed @ 031b87d & d91646b, improvements can come via PR. OSX installer is as ugly as ever, no surprises there
The Windows installer is meant to use an RTF rendering of this doc, hence the additional formatting in there. I don't have a Windows machine handy right now due to a big office cleanup, could someone from @nodejs/platform-windows please grab an msi from https://nodejs.org/download/nightly/v5.4.2-nightly20160114e855b596f4/ and screenshot the license screen for us? |
|
fwiw I'm hoping we can deal with the OSX formatting along with #2571 but I haven't looked at it yet (which is why it's still in limbo!) |
|
@rvagg This one? |
|
Yep, that looks OK I think @seishun, if you do a scroll through does it look ok (as far as these things go), i.e. proper formatting rather than markdown? |
|
Does this count as proper formatting? |
|
bah, that doesn't look right .. probably need to tweak either the LICENSE.md format or the rtf converter. Will leave this issue open as a reminder, to myself or anyone else wanting to tackle this job (hint: |
|
and thanks for being responsive on this @seishun! |
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: #4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#4194 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Added
tools/license-builder.shto construct the LICENSE file from the licenses of all the dependencies used by Node.Re-ordered the licenses alphabetically within dependency type groups:
Additionally:
NAME, located at LOCATION, is licensed as follows:It's surprising how far out of sync we are with our dependency licenses cause we don't have a tool or procedure to keep them updated.
This probably needs to wait at least until we get results from #3979 but I'd like us to have a tool that keeps our rules consistent and lets us ensure our LICENSE is up to date.
/cc @mikeal