[docs] Instruct how to deploy several license files#19227
[docs] Instruct how to deploy several license files#19227wrobelda wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:masterfrom
Conversation
Many projects will have more than a single license. Such projects typically have a LICENSES folder with SPDX copies of them. This explains how to copy them all instead just a single one. Such projects with multiple licenses should be officially recognized, so that maintainers are aware of it. See e.g.: microsoft#19199 (review) microsoft#19200 (comment)
|
Is it really desired that the |
I am really not sure what you mean here. |
Until now I relied on the assumption that I do not dispute the need to deal with alternative licenses. I'm worried because if Now I wonder if there are any examples in vcpkg where |
There's no documentation indeed, which is why I came up with this solution that allowed me to copy multiple files to a That having said, I see that Debian still delivers a single EDIT: just checked the |
|
Yeah, Debian maintainers do much more than just copying files. Another thing to note is that they document the legal state of the source code. For the resulting binaries which are combined from multiple components, you still have to check which licenses can be combined to form a legal result. For vcpkg, I just would like to ensure a conscious decision whether to stay with a file (and additional sidecar files if needed) or whether to allow directories (and if yes, if there needs to be another primary file). It is not just a quick documentation fix. |
|
Dropping "reviewed" because this needs further consideration from the whole team since it's a policy change. We're going to discuss it tomorrow. |
|
After some discussion considering the above, @ras0219 @vicroms @dan-shaw and I met "in person" and agreed that all 3 of:
are roughly equivalent for human readers, and the concatenation solution is best for tools as @dg0yt mentioned, so that is the solution we wish to prefer in the future. Contributors who are interested in helping with this, in addition to changing the docs in this PR to be consistent with that result:
|
May be it would be helpful to (optionally) insert an introductory remark before each file. |
And In particular, also listing all the names of the original files, which most of the time would be the names of licenses found in that file. |
|
@wrobelda, could you address the review suggestion? |
I have noting else to add than what I suggested above (#19227 (comment)). Everything else sounds good to me, however, I don't currently have time to deal with this myself. In any case, this PR is for the documentation and my suggested edits woluld still stand with the functionality suggested by @BillyONeal |
|
Please reopen this PR if you have spare time. |
Many projects will have more than a single license. Such projects typically have a LICENSES folder with SPDX copies of them. This explains how to copy them all instead just a single one.
Such projects with multiple licenses should be officially recognized, so that maintainers are aware of it. See e.g.: #19199 (review)
#19200 (comment)
EDIT: also promotes
${PORT}usage and wrapping paths in quotes.