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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
