search

riscvarchive / riscv-platform-specs

RISC-V Profiles and Platform Specification
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
112 stars 39 forks source link

Missing LICENSE file #18

Closed jjscheel closed 2 years ago

jjscheel commented 3 years ago

While the README file references the project is licensed under the CC-BY-4.0 license and provides a link to the full license text. the lack of a LICENSE file prevent GitHub from recognizing the license.

I propose adding a plain text LICENSE file like the one used in the ISA manual.

I'm happy to add this into the project directly and will do so shortly. If anyone has concerns, please raise them.

Thanks, -Jeff

jjscheel commented 3 years ago

Upon further review, it does appear that the project has a license file (licensing.adoc). There are two problems with this file:

  1. It needs to be named "LICENSE" not "licensing" for GitHub to recognize it.
  2. For full license recognition by GitHub, the file needs to be raw text or .md. I'm recommending the raw format for organizational consistency.

@vlsunil, how would you like to proceed? Should I add the LICENSE file per previous post and let you deprecate the licensing.adoc by moving the copyright information into the README?

vlsunil commented 3 years ago

@jjscheel : Yes, please go ahead and add LICENSE file. Thanks!. I think we can remove licensing.adoc since README already has the copyright information.

jjscheel commented 3 years ago

@vlsunil, I've added the new file. After another look at the licensing.adoc, I think we should move the Copyright information somewhere, perhaps back into the README. I don't think we want to lose that information.

Do you want to take care of that? I'm happy to do it if you'd prefer.

I'll leave this open until we decide.

kumarsankaran commented 2 years ago

Is this issue resolved?

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

@kumarsankaran, I still see the licensing.adoc file in the tree and the text in it is not in the README. So, I'd say that this is not done.

I'm happy to complete the work if you'd prefer.

kumarsankaran commented 2 years ago

Yes, please Jeff. Can you complete what's needed and close this issue?

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

On retrospect, the licensing.adoc file should be part of the document, not the site.

@kumarsankaran, I don't see license info in the document. I believe it should be there, do you agree?

kumarsankaran commented 2 years ago

@jjscheel Yes, the licensing info should be there in the document.

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

@kumarsankaran, when I review the last published riscv-platform-spec from Nov 1, I don't see the licensing information nor the changelog nor the contributor. While I'm not yet an expert in asciidoc, I suspect that you failing to include these in your top file (riscv-platform-spec.adoc). I see them listed in the Makefile as $PARTS and see where that file starts the build in the top file, but I don't see any additional include files.

I'll let you folks hand this as you want. You can either continue to work it here, or open a new issuse and close this one.

Sound ok?

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

I see that these have now been included. Closing.