Add "SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0"

[boaks]

I currently plan to add

SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0

to all file headers.

Any opinions? Objections?

[boaks]

In the meantime I updated the license_header_template.txt (see PR #2097 ).

The result is "SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause".

I would just got to edit the headers module by module to add that line and remove the " All rights reserved. ". That mainly causes more work, if someone has middle or larger ongoing work on existing files. Though it edits only the header, such changes should be easy to apply automatically.

@sbernard31 is it OK for you that I start to edit the headers? You may need to apply that to your branch "csm".

[sbernard31]

@sbernard31 is it OK for you that I start to edit the headers? You may need to apply that to your branch "csm".

What would be other alternatives ?

[boaks]

Just postpone to edit the headers.

[sbernard31]

postpone but until when ?

To be totally transparent, currently

• our collective discussion about "coap+tcp in californium" didn't help me to understand what you really want about this ?
• and If I should understood "having coap+tcp in californium is the right thing to do" then I think we didn't succeed to agree on a plan and/or a process.

So currently on my side this is completely in pause. If nothing changes about this, I plan to explore other way than contributing to Californium.

But of course, if :

• you really want to have coap+tcp in californium
• and/or you see some coap+tcp side topics as opportunity to improve californium.
• and/or you want to try to involve me in californium using this topic as an opportunity to find a way to work together. (maybe even an opportunity to explore together about how to involved new committers in this kind of project)

I'm OK to try.

So I guess we should finish this discussion first and then we can have a plan for this topic ? or postpone is just not an option.

[boaks]

As I proposed in a e-mail:

Either use a "feature branch" or try to use a separate "module" for this TCP WIP. Since you started to work on it, the scope expanded and expanded. I gave a lot of answers, but it seems, that this answers didn't help. I'm not the only one, who may have a look at this TCP work and may give additional answers.

[boaks]

or postpone is just not an option.

It's up to you to decide, if the TCP work should be a feature branch (then these header changes should mainly be handled with rebasing), a separate module, or that TCP work itself is postponed or abandoned.

Adding "SPDX-License-Identifier:" isn't that urgent for me, it's more a question, when spending the time. Maybe I start with the other, not TCP affected, modules.

[sbernard31]

Adding "SPDX-License-Identifier:" isn't that urgent for me, it's more a question, when spending the time. Maybe I start with the other, not TCP affected, modules.

if you can, this is maybe better to postpone all header in californium-core/ element-connector/ element-connector-tcp-netty until we clarify the coap+tcp situation.

More or less what I propose with :

So I guess we should finish this discussion first and then we can have a plan for this topic ?

[boaks]

if you can

Sure, then I will edit the other headers.