license: removes copyright year and uses SPDX ID#257
Merged
codefromthecrypt merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Mar 5, 2024
Merged
Conversation
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commerical and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
anuraaga
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2024
| # Prevent use of implicit GitHub Actions read-only token GITHUB_TOKEN. | ||
| # We push Javadocs to the gh-pages branch on commit. | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.GH_TOKEN }} | ||
| fetch-depth: 0 # allow build-bin/idl_to_gh_pages to get the full history |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't check the code just doublechecking this is fine the comment isn't about "license check"
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I should have self-commented. this repo doesn't have a script like this, so it is fuzz
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well I guess it's copy pasta from a different repo :D
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah the dreaded zipkin-api repo ;)
| $ export GPG_TTY=$(tty) && GPG_PASSPHRASE=whackamole SONATYPE_USER=adrianmole SONATYPE_PASSWORD=ed6f20bde9123bbb2312b221 build-bin/build-bin/maven/maven_deploy | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## First release of the year |
Member
Author
|
thanks for advice and the review @anuraaga |
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commerical and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-gcp
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commercial and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-aws
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commercial and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
This was referenced Apr 14, 2024
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commerical and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 --------- Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/brave-example
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
This project wasn't using the license plugin, but had some copy-paste license that should be coherent with other projects. Similarly, we don't need to specify default fetch-depth on checkout. See openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/brave-example
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
This project wasn't using the license plugin, but had some copy-paste license that should be coherent with other projects. Similarly, we don't need to specify default fetch-depth on checkout. See openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-aws
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commercial and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
codefromthecrypt
added a commit
to openzipkin/zipkin-gcp
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2024
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commercial and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one, should be, too! Doing so accomplishes the following: * significantly increases readability of files, particularly small ones * removes beginning of year maintenance, which cause a lot of FUD last year. IIRC some deployment failed and hours were spent in spite of docs. * eliminates the need to do a full source check out, just to satisfy the license plugin. This means we can use actions/checkout defaults. Same as openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java#257 Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As a small project, we have to conserve resources and not sign up for work that isn't required. I've recently realized many commercial and/or CNCF projects both use SPDX IDs and also don't bother with copyright year. If their legal team is ok with this, surely a volunteer team without access to one should be, too!
Doing so accomplishes the following, all of which help volunteers: