search

attic-labs / noms

The versioned, forkable, syncable database
Apache License 2.0
7.44k stars 266 forks source link

edit Noms license info so that GitHub recognizes it #3804

Closed eirinikos closed 5 years ago

eirinikos commented 6 years ago

Hello! 👋

(CCing @dankohn who has requested this work so that the license will appear correctly in https://landscape.cncf.io/selected=noms-db)

GitHub uses a library called Licensee to identify a project's license type. It shows this information in the status bar and via the API if it can unambiguously identify the license.

This commit modifies a few of Noms' docs so that Licensee is able to recognize the repository's license type. It updates LICENSE so that it contains the full text of the Apache license. It also updates the README with a new "Licensing" section.

Collectively, these changes allow Licensee to successfully identify the license type of Noms as Apache 2.0.

For comparison purposes, here is the output that I get when I run Licensee locally on Noms' remote repo:

$ licensee detect https://github.com/attic-labs/noms
License:        Other
Matched files:  LICENSE
LICENSE:
  Content hash:  62b97e52b78439c14550a44a3fe51332aeffb3a1
  Attribution:   Copyright 2016 Attic Labs, Inc.
  License:       Other
  Closest licenses:
    Unlicense similarity:  35.29%
    Zlib similarity:       34.33%
    MIT similarity:        32.00%

And here is the output that I get when I run Licensee on the update-license branch of my local Noms clone:

$ licensee detect ../noms/
License:        Apache License 2.0
Matched files:  LICENSE
LICENSE:
  Content hash:  4f3dee90d3ff02d566b067c25982c2bfd7e360c1
  Confidence:    100.00%
  Matcher:       Licensee::Matchers::Exact
  License:       Apache License 2.0
eirinikos commented 6 years ago

FYI, this PR is ready for review. Thanks!

aboodman commented 5 years ago

@eirinikos Not sure if you are still working on this, but I kind of prefer just pointing at the official location of the license, so that readers can know that there is no difference from the standard one. Is there any way to update Licensee or Github to know about this type of convention? I'm sure I'm not the only project who would like to do this (we had same debate on Chromium when I worked on that, for example).

dankohn commented 5 years ago

Neither Licensee nor GitHub are likely to change. If you don't include the license text, GitHub won't auto-detect it.

Note that you could add a comment in the Readme that the text of the license is unchanged.

Dan Kohn dan@linuxfoundation.org Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 4:51 PM Aaron Boodman notifications@github.com wrote:

@eirinikos https://github.com/eirinikos Not sure if you are still working on this, but I kind of prefer just pointing at the official location of the license, so that readers can know that there is no difference from the standard one. Is there any way to update Licensee or Github to know about this type of convention? I'm sure I'm not the only project who would like to do this (we had same debate on Chromium when I worked on that, for example).

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/attic-labs/noms/pull/3804#issuecomment-441397993, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC8MBqnqKGQDT25wXHKks4tk8TwfZ8y1ks5uyb9EgaJpZM4UD9Yn .

dankohn commented 5 years ago

Thank you! GitHub now correctly shows Noms at Apache 2.0.