Missing license about ast HOT 5 CLOSED

The license is EPL 1.0

Yes, AT&T made a weird license choice (again). The EPL is particularly ambiguous about the reusability of "modules", and this is a project that consists largely of libraries.

I would have liked to use AST's regex code but avoided this because I couldn't guarantee license compatibility everywhere I might have wanted it.

from ast.

It is a little tricky because this repo contains many independent packages, which could each technically have their own license, should AT&T decide to do so I suppose, and the license is stated at the top of every source file, though I have only checked a few.

Perhaps a LICENSE file could be created indicating this information rather than just stating EPL 1.0? Though it makes more sense to me to have a single LICENSE file and have the source files point to that location rather than all of them declare what the license actually is, to make it easier to change.

from ast.

The Fish project does not have a LICENSE file. The Elvish project does. Those are the other shell projects I've contributed to. I am not a lawyer so I have no idea what the right thing to do here is. We can certainly, and probably should, create a LICENSE file that describes which portions of the code are under which licenses.

This may be difficult because parts of the code (e.g., src/libbz/crctable.c) are from other projects without an explicit license mentioned in the file but which do have a LICENSE file. While other pieces of code put the license in each source file. And, of course, there may be other variations I haven't noticed.

from ast.

These files have different licenses:

• src/lib/libast/misc/fastfind.c has a BSD license
• src/cmd/ksh93/tests/treemove.sh mixes EPL 1.0 with CDDL
• perhaps other files that I haven't found yet

from ast.

Although there are some portions of code which use different licenses, this project as a whole was released under EPL-1.0. I think it should be safe to put EPL-1.0 text in the LICENSE file.

from ast.