Is there a standard for formatting license information in source codes?

I

I_dont_known2016-06-17 16:16:06

Copyright

I_dont_known, 2016-06-17 16:16:06

Interested in how authorship, license, etc. should be formalized in the source code. If the license is in a separate file, how to issue a link.

Reply

Answer the question

In order to leave comments, you need to log in

3 answer(s)

Z

Zr, 2016-06-18
@I_dont_known

I_dont_known [from comments]> I'm interested in how both cases are formatted in the header of the source code. You can give examples.
What are "both cases"? When is there a separate file with a detailed list of conditions and when not?
The terms for distributing the source text are divided into the part included in each file and into the application when they are too long to be placed in each file in their entirety - these are the GNU licenses , the second Apache license . And also when they parody long licenses, it's WTFPL .
In this case, which part to write where is described in the instructions attached to the license (the links above are to them, and not to the texts of the licenses). Applying common sense, you can use the same guidelines (the first , in particular) and for other free licenses, and non-free ones too.
And distribution conditions are not shared when they are written carelessly, and therefore fit perfectly into each file as a whole: these are BSD licenses, the so-called. “MIT licenses” (Expat and X11), and there are many of them, because writing a poorly written license is not difficult.
There are no instructions here, because sloppy licenses were not intended for wide distribution, they were written for internal use (in BSD, in X, etc.), but I think that everything is clear anyway - just in each file, below the line "Copyright © <years> <copyright-holder>". Although sometimes it is necessary to correct the text of the conditions itself, if the version that fell into your hands commemorates some organizations that are not related to you - the University of California, say, or the X-Consortium; but it is better to find ready.
PS No, you need to get better, I know another, besides the WTFPL, poorly detailed license,.

A

Armenian Radio, 2016-06-17
@gbg

LICENSE.TXT at source root.
If you want to hurt people's eyes, you can do it in the header of each source in the form of a comment. However, this is redundant.

J

jcmvbkbc, 2016-06-17
@jcmvbkbc

https://spdx.org/sites/spdx/files/SPDX-2.0.pdf
If you want examples, u-boot uses this standard.
Or, Eric Raymond praises him in every possible way .