For the current license, we pointed people to a URL for the license for the file. Why aren't we continuing that?
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:43 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 27/11/2018 00:21, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 23/11/2018 07:55, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >> Copied from: > >> > >> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html > >> > >> The formatting is suitable for C/C++ source comments. > >> > >> Update #3053. > >> --- > >> LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause > >> > >> diff --git a/LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause b/LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..d19f31e646 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause > >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ > >> +https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html > >> + > >> +This license file serves as a template for the license header in files. > >> + > >> +You are the copyright holder. Copy to comment below the top of the > file in > > > > There is a typo here. It should be "Copy the comment". > > Nice catch. > > > Apart from this typo, is this template all right? Chris, Gedare, Joel? > > I am OK. > > Thanks > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
