-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 111
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pass through template copyright and license to generated service runner classes, as agreed with OSS #387
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Pass through template copyright and license to generated service runner classes, as agreed with OSS #387
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,18 +1,17 @@ | ||
<#-- | ||
Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | ||
// Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I have two questions on this, and I genuinely don't know the answer to either one. First, do we need to keep the previous license/copyright statement? Or does the license/copyright that's part of the template constitute a license/copyright on the template itself? Second, is 2022 the right year for the copyright? Presumably, people will be generating code from this template in 2023 and later. Should the year for generated copyrights be the year in which the code is generated (meaning the year needs to be templatized)? Or should be the year be the same as the year of the copyright of the template itself (meaning 2022 is correct)? |
||
// | ||
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); | ||
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. | ||
// You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
// | ||
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
// | ||
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
// limitations under the License. | ||
|
||
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); | ||
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. | ||
You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
|
||
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
|
||
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
limitations under the License. | ||
--> | ||
package ${classPackage}; | ||
|
||
import org.eclipse.collections.api.factory.Lists; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have two questions on this, and I genuinely don't know the answer to either one.
First, do we need to keep the previous license/copyright statement? Or does the license/copyright that's part of the template constitute a license/copyright on the template itself?
Second, is 2022 the right year for the copyright? Presumably, people will be generating code from this template in 2023 and later. Should the year for generated copyrights be the year in which the code is generated (meaning the year needs to be templatized)? Or should be the year be the same as the year of the copyright of the template itself (meaning 2022 is correct)?