3 ms·
The MIT license does not seem to dictate the exact location of inclusion. Logically, I would think you would want to associate it with the specific parts of cod
by evantbyrne 2y ago
The MIT license does not seem to dictate the exact location of inclusion. Logically, I would think you would want to associate it with the specific parts of code that you are copying. In the past, I've listed licenses together in the root license file for forks, and other times when the included code was a minor part of the overall project placed forked licenses within impacted files.
- Linux-Fan 2y agoThere is even some sort of “de-facto” standard for this purposes: Debian COPYRIGHT files: <https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-forma...>. It may not be perfect for all cases (e.g. if some sort of dependency is linked but not present in the source tree it is naturally not really accounted for by Debian copyright files) but then there is always the options of either adding copyright information to every source code file (I don't like that style for redundancy but it is for sure a very clear way to do it) or to hand-craft a human-readable variant similar to the Debian approach but less formally. In any case it seems that nothing is new aobut this and developers working with FOSS software should very well be aware of these concepts.