Remove appendix from Apache license #67734
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
XAMPPRocky
changed the title
|
r? @skade would you be ok taking a look at this? |
|
Not sure why I can't assign to @skade, they should be somewhere in the Rust org I feel. I've pinged them on Discord. |
|
This is unproblematic and makes sense. The license itself states:
Of which the Appendix is not a part. It makes sense to remove it. It may also confuse people, as we don't apply the license the way it is proposed in there. |
|
@Mark-Simulacrum Looking at |
|
@bors r=skade |
|
📌 Commit 2ccf65c has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 2ccf65c with merge 658e0817734367860daca4f8e9f8310f14861399... |
|
Your PR failed (pretty log, raw log). Through arcane magic we have determined that the following fragments from the build log may contain information about the problem. Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-azure |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry install of msys2 was NOT successful |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors rollup=always |
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2020
Remove appendix from Apache license Looking at the codebase I noticed an oddity, in that the appendix of how use the Apache licence is still contained in the licence file. We don't put licence headers at the top of all of our files so I don't think we need to keep this. Alternatively we could delete everything above line 191 to have a shorter licence file.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2020
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #67734 (Remove appendix from Apache license) - #67795 (Cleanup formatting code) - #68290 (Fix some tests failing in `--pass check` mode) - #68297 ( Filter and test predicates using `normalize_and_test_predicates` for const-prop) - #68302 (Fix #[track_caller] and function pointers) - #68339 (Add `riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu` into target list in build-manifest) - #68381 (Added minor clarification to specification of GlobalAlloc::realloc.) - #68397 (rustdoc: Correct order of `async` and `unsafe` in `async unsafe fn`s) Failed merges: r? @ghost
allan2
added a commit
to allan2/rustc-hash
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2021
This change is to be consistent with rust-lang/rust. Their change was made in January 2020. The PR over there: [Remove appendix from LICENCE-APACHE](rust-lang/rust#67734)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang/libc
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
Removed Apache License appendix Related issues: #2660; rust-lang/rust#67734
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang/libc
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
Removed Apache License appendix Related issues: #2660; rust-lang/rust#67734
allan2
added a commit
to allan2/rustc-hash
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 1, 2024
This change is to be consistent with rust-lang/rust. Their change was made in January 2020. The PR over there: [Remove appendix from LICENCE-APACHE](rust-lang/rust#67734)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 27, 2024
internal: Drop Apache license appendices Closes #14586 Similar to rust-lang/rust#67734
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2024
internal: Drop Apache license appendices Closes rust-lang#14586 Similar to rust-lang#67734
schneems
added a commit
to schneems/zookeeper
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
schneems
added a commit
to schneems/zeppelin
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
schneems
added a commit
to schneems/wicket
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
schneems
added a commit
to schneems/yetus
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
schneems
added a commit
to schneems/yunikorn-k8shim
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
martin-g
pushed a commit
to apache/wicket
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2025
The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734.
jongyoul
pushed a commit
to apache/zeppelin
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2025
* Remove extra text from license The Apache 2.0 license on the website shows that it ends after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <img width="1401" alt="387383537-f56c8594-5c32-41d5-a5b7-f4a587125ca2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca29c9a4-b520-401f-9e6c-ce2b3464e942"> This text exists because it's been mistakenly copied and pasted from https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt where it includes placeholder text and the intent seems to be reproducing the application instructions as seen on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 rather than as text that's intended to be included in the license. The text removed in this PR diverges slightly from the text on https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply > How to apply the Apache License to your work > > Include a copy of the Apache License, typically in a file called LICENSE, in your work, and consider also including a NOTICE file that references the License. > > To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. The text on the website ⬆️ seems to indicate that placing the Apache 2.0 license text in a `LICENSE` is sufficient for a project. The text given in the text file ⬇️ does not mention a LICENSE file and instead seems to imply that the full text of the Apache 2.0 license is not required, but use the "boilerplate" after swapping out the placeholders. Looking at other high profile projects that use the Apache 2.0 license it looks like their understanding matches mine, here's Rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/fda68927475070696fcc9d1f5c9c990f0e1af87a/LICENSE-APACHE. Here's a discussion from 5 years ago on whether to remove the appendix from there rust-lang/rust#67734. * Add end of terms line back in.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Looking at the codebase I noticed an oddity, in that the appendix of how use the Apache licence is still contained in the licence file. We don't put licence headers at the top of all of our files so I don't think we need to keep this. Alternatively we could delete everything above line 191 to have a shorter licence file.