HN Explorer

9 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 13.1 ms ] thread
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B
Is there a point to this if license headers are (supposedly) useless?
steveklabnik
I think for licenses like the MPL, which are scoped to a single file, including the header makes sense, and isn't particularly onerous: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/headers/

I don't put headers in projects that use other licenses.

codetrotter
I used to put the ISC license in the header of every file when I first started sharing code online under open source licenses. But eventually I realized that a single LICENSE file is best, instead of having the header in all of the files.
stonogo
If Google wants to use your software, they will whine until you add them. I guess automating it would be nice in that case.
ognarb
Use the Reuse specification and tooling instead: https://reuse.software/

There is no need to reinvent a solved problem by rewritting it in rust with a different format, particularly considering that reuse was developed by the FSFE in collaboration with some lawyers.

giancarlostoro
This isn't the only tooling out there though, typical SCA tooling in most enterprise companies will scan dependency licensing and vulnerabilities.
rendaw
Their getting started guide tells you to manually add the header to the file. How do you get it to automatically add the header like hawkeye does?