Copyright headers for build scripts #8784

This needs sign-off from: @morcos @anddam @brandondahler @btcdrak @casey @theuni @cozz @dcousens @ers35 @EthanHeilman @gavinandresen @gmaxwell @jamesob @jgarzik @jonasschnelli @jtimon @joshtriplett @kazcw @maraoz @MarcoFalke @maaku @TheBlueMatt @fanquake @musalbas @pstratem @paveljanik @Diapolo @sipa @rnicoll @SergioDemianLerner @sdaftuar @laanwj @yurizhykin @dexX7 @nomnombtc @ntrgn @ptschip @randy-waterhouse @sinetek

@knocte @joshtriplett

@ajtowns @dooglus @onlyjob @wtogami @imwuzhh

Permission from Tim Kosse has already been obtained:

[22:45:45] <codesquid> yes, shouldn't be an issue to put this one under MIT license

I sign-off on changing the license of these build scripts as indicated.

I approve.

I approve of adding license information.

I don't think it's a great idea to include the typo fixing commit here given the subject of this PR, but you probably don't care what I think about that.

I approve of placing the build scripts under MIT license.

Can't we have a general policy that everything committed to the repository must be put under MIT license? (e.g. github shows this repository as MIT) no matter what is at the top of the individual file.

This just keeps going on and on and on (this pull, #8702, #8701, #8700, #8676, are just the last few days), Micromanaging every file in this way results in a lot of overhead for everyone involved, which could be spent on solving one of the many actual problems.

So I really never want to repeat this again.

I approve.

:+1: from me. @laanwj Agreed; I already assumed from the top-level COPYING file containing the MIT license that any contributions were under the MIT license unless otherwise specified.

:+1:

I approve

I approve.

Approved

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 11:47 Pieter Wuille notifications@github.com wrote:

I approve.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #8784 (comment), or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARh1Qj6TjszqTSAkIMxKu7mj_YpFDJ-ks5qsfpigaJpZM4KDX7b .

Approved

Approved

I approve.

Approved

Approved.

I approve and agree with @laanwj.

@luke-jr Many of those that were pinged already gave a permanent ACK on all of their past contributions to this repo to be explicitly MIT licensed.

@MarcoFalke Is there a record of who has done so?

Approved.

@luke-jr e.g. #7300 (comment)

Yes, my point is there's no easy way to find these.

Fine with me.

Approved.

But also like someone said:

I already assumed from the top-level COPYING file containing the MIT license that any contributions were under the MIT license unless otherwise specified.

My contribution was trivial, but I definitely approve the PR.

Approved.

Approved.

I approve

Approved

Approve. sinetek Sep 27 2016

1. ACK/approved for all my contributions, @luke-jr

2. The project should consider something like the Linux kernel's developer sign-off, to augment the MIT license: http://developercertificate.org

2. The project should consider something like the Linux kernel's developer sign-off, to augment the MIT license: http://developercertificate.org

Agree, but I think right now we are missing the infrastructure to do so.

I approve.

Approved