Add dual-license notice (corrected fork)#678
Open
AkarshSahlot wants to merge 1 commit intop4lang:masterfrom
Open
Add dual-license notice (corrected fork)#678AkarshSahlot wants to merge 1 commit intop4lang:masterfrom
AkarshSahlot wants to merge 1 commit intop4lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Akarsh Sahlot <akarshsahlot7@gmail.com>
4f8b55b to
8f45340
Compare
Collaborator
|
Same comments as here: p4lang/p4c#5212 (comment) |
Author
|
Will wait for it |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes I have done:
This PR updates the LICENSE file inside p4c to explicitly:
Previously Behavior:
The repository only listed Apache-2.0 in the top-level LICENSE file, which make users think it's purely apache gpl2-only files existed but were not clearly documented , which has a risk of:
Why This Important for us to do:
Prevents accidental mixing of incompatible licenses.
Increased Transparency, Users/tools can now identify GPL-2.0-only files at a glance.
Now it follows spdx standards for multi-license projects.
Verification
All listed GPL files exist (./backends/ebpf/tests/ptf/*.py)
License texts are verbatim from official sources Compliance notes
warn against static linking/binary distribution
I verified them locally
This small addition solves big legal/automation headaches!
/cc @jafingerhut
Could you please review this license clarification?
Fixes #666