Re: [patch V4 01/11] Documentation: Add license-rules.rst to describe how to properly identify file licenses

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Thomas,

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

> +The common way of expressing the license of a source file is to add the
> +matching boiler plate text into the top comment of the file.  Due to

I would likely go with boilerplate instead. Unless you are talking
about the real flat thing [1][2] of course!

[1] http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Railway/en/ag/lg16.jpg
[2] http://whynameitthat.blogspot.be/2013/10/boiler-plate.html

> +formatting, typos etc. these "boiler plates" are hard to validate for
> +tools which are used in the context of license compliance.

Same as above, "boilerplates" might be better.

> +
> +An alternative to boilerplate text is the use of Software Package Data

And that's the correct way to go IMHO, so going boilerplate all the
way makes sense.

I shall add that while they --the boilerplates-- may be a source of
unexpected excitement for first-year law students, each time someone
sends a patch with these, there is a kitten that dies somewhere. And
we all love kitten, do we?

Thank you for using some of your precious real time writing this doc.

Jonathan,
As an English Major, does this make sense to you? (using boilerplate
as a single word, not the kitten thing)

-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne