Closed willnorris closed 7 years ago
/cc @jamesgpearce
Hi, I was just chatting with our tools folks about this from your email. We need some linting type thing that makes sure this is all as it is intended. It is somewhat more tricky than you might imagine because of the two mechanisms by which a pull request can be opened. I will find the right people internally to look into this.
@ericvicenti is going to help with the license cleanup and is very excited about getting into the world of licensing-tooling :D
Can you give us a sense of the timeframe for this to be fixed. We'd love to use React-Native and feel blocked by the uncertainty of your licensing intent. Thanks!
I'm hoping to get this done by the end of the month, which will allow react-native v0.44
to have this problem resolved. This release-candidate will be available ~April 1st, and the stable release is scheduled for ~May 1st.
Everything other than Examples/UIExplorer
should be cleaned up, but unfortunately that is still under the samples license for v0.44
UIExplorer
is somewhat tricky to move because it is integrated with our testing setup. I'll figure it out over the next couple weeks, and we will be completely under a consistent license for 0.v45
Eric, Are you still on track for the May 1st? Is that for v0.44 or v045?
Did this get addressed in the latest release?
Yes, 0.45 should have addressed this.
The following files have conflicting license information in their headers. They claim to be both a BSD-style license as well as one of either:
The examples provided by Facebook are for non-commercial testing and evaluation purposes only.
They are all js files, so my guess is that you ran a script to add the BSD header to all js files, and they maybe should not have been applied to these? In any event, it's unclear what license is really supposed to apply to these files.