Most, but not all, source code files attempt to state that they are copyrighted to the KSLib team and are released under the MIT License. A copyright notice should also list any year that that source code was modified. Also, the existing one-liner is excessively verbose. Further, a generally accepted best practice is to start a source code file with a one-line comment containing the filename and a brief description. This is has not been consistently followed, either.
Document fils should carry a similar copyright notice and license reference, typically at the very bottom.
Cleaning these up would not only keep KSLib work consistent with its obligations under the MIT License, but also make our codebase give a better first impression. Also, the changes would all be at the very top or very bottom, making a merge a snap.
Not a criticism, just the truth from a guy who's willing to clean this up. I've got a pull request ready to go.
Most, but not all, source code files attempt to state that they are copyrighted to the KSLib team and are released under the MIT License. A copyright notice should also list any year that that source code was modified. Also, the existing one-liner is excessively verbose. Further, a generally accepted best practice is to start a source code file with a one-line comment containing the filename and a brief description. This is has not been consistently followed, either.
Document fils should carry a similar copyright notice and license reference, typically at the very bottom.
Cleaning these up would not only keep KSLib work consistent with its obligations under the MIT License, but also make our codebase give a better first impression. Also, the changes would all be at the very top or very bottom, making a merge a snap.
Not a criticism, just the truth from a guy who's willing to clean this up. I've got a pull request ready to go.