chore: update some missed files to new MIT license #920
Conversation
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
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
ah no I see, this is stuff that escaped the sweep in #556 |
|
yeah, seems like it just needs an update to the license text, i guess i missed a few files when we switched to the modern mit license |
While fixing c-ares#556 and re-licensing to the new MIT license text some files were forgotten to be updated.
I updated the text in the three files. |
bradh352
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text. The license text in question is identical to the [NTP](https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html) license, not [MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). Fix By: Gregor Jasny (@gjasny)
bradh352
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text. The license text in question is identical to the [NTP](https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html) license, not [MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). Fix By: Gregor Jasny (@gjasny)
bradh352
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text. The license text in question is identical to the [NTP](https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html) license, not [MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). Fix By: Gregor Jasny (@gjasny)
bradh352
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text. The license text in question is identical to the [NTP](https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html) license, not [MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). Fix By: Gregor Jasny (@gjasny)
bradh352
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text. The license text in question is identical to the [NTP](https://spdx.org/licenses/NTP.html) license, not [MIT](https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html). Fix By: Gregor Jasny (@gjasny)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
While working on a DEP-5 machine readable copyright file for the Debian packages, I noticed that the SPDX tag differs from the actual license text.
The license text in question is identical to the NTP license, not MIT.