Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Incorrect LICENSE.md file and license headers

See original GitHub issue

General Troubleshooting

I have checked for similar issues.
I have updated to the latest JDA version.
I have checked the branches or the maintainers’ PRs for upcoming features/bug fixes.

Issue

Issue Type

Bug Report (kind of?)
Feature Request

Description

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I just did some research for my own library (by reading and looking at other repositories) and noticed that there are some problems with your LICENSE.md file and your license headers:

You did alter the “How to apply the Apache License to your work” appendix with your own names. The appendix is meant to be a template for users of the license and is not meant be changed. Just take a look at any other project that uses the Apache License, e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/LICENSE#L189
You put your names into the license headers of all your source files. While this would be fine if you were the only authors of these files, this is not the case here. Unless stated otherwise in a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), on GitHub every contributor explicitly keeps the copyright for his/her changes under the same license than the repository (see https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#6-contributions-under-repository-license). This is commonly designated as “inbound=outbound”. With this in mind, your copyright headers are wrong as in most cases you are not the only copyright owner of the given file.

I just wanted to let you know as I think that it’s relevant for you. It’s up to you, what you make with this information. Personally I came to the conclusion to not add any license headers to any of my files as they are not required by law (see https://ben.balter.com/2015/06/03/copyright-notices-for-websites-and-open-source-projects/). If you decide to keep the license headers, I would recommend the wording from my linked article:

Copyright [year project started] - [current year], [project founder] and the [project name] contributors.

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 5 years ago
Comments:5 (1 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

2reactions

MinnDevelopmentcommented, Jan 20, 2019

@Bastian thank you for thinking of us but it looks like no changes need to be made in our case here.

1reaction

DV8FromTheWorldcommented, Jan 20, 2019

I believe this PR should alleviate that: https://github.com/DV8FromTheWorld/JDA/pull/885

Top Results From Across the Web

eslint-plugin-license-header/header.md at master - GitHub

This rule aims to support you by ensuring that all files in your project have a uniform license header. Assuming the file ./resources/license-header.js...

Is License mentioned in README enough [duplicate]

Yes, it's OK to not have any license file. ... machine-readable metadata such as SPDX-License-Identifier headers or package manager metadata.

Putting license in each code file? [closed] - Stack Overflow

I just updated the file headers in my project to have only three lines: copyright, name of license, and an URL to the...

Preparing For Release | Google Open Source

Many hosts will render Markdown syntax if the file is named README.md. Include LICENSE file and source code headers. Every file containing ...

licenser - Visual Studio Marketplace

An extension for adding license headers and LICENSE files into your workspace. ... Makefile; Markdown; Nim (and Nimble); Objective-C; OCaml ...