You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #897 (comment) I asked whether it was possible for Google to use a more compact statement, e.g.
// Copyright <dates> The Amber Authors
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
rather than including the full license text in every file, and was pointed to the current policy at https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/preparing/#license-headers. So, this is to ask if this form of header could be added to the acceptable list. I understand the realities of making changes like this which necc. pull in corporate lawyers, and don't expect a quick answer, but think it's worth raising the question. I think this should be assigned to @cdibona who AIUI is the point person on open source licensing at Google.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In #897 (comment) I asked whether it was possible for Google to use a more compact statement, e.g.
// Copyright <dates> The Amber Authors
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
rather than including the full license text in every file, and was pointed to the current policy at https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/preparing/#license-headers. So, this is to ask if this form of header could be added to the acceptable list. I understand the realities of making changes like this which necc. pull in corporate lawyers, and don't expect a quick answer, but think it's worth raising the question. I think this should be assigned to @cdibona who AIUI is the point person on open source licensing at Google.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: