Using a single LICENSE file

[molnarg]

I'd suggest using a single LICENSE file in the root directory instead of pasting the license in every file. Is there any reason to copy it around everywhere?

[axemclion]

Given that this project does not have a license, what should we use ?
We usually use Apache 2.0. @molnarg, @mnot, any preferences here ?

[molnarg]

As far as I'm concerned, any permissive open source license works for this repo. However, I don't know if IETF requires some specific license for projects like this.

[mnot]

Checking into it now.

[mnot]

It's up to the WG. I'll suggest Apache 2.0 on-list.

[mnot]

Folks on-list seem to prefer Simplified BSD. If this causes heartache for any contributors, please speak up; I'd rather have the contribution.

[panarasi]

@mnot, Simplified BSD aka BSD clause 2 will work for MS Open Tech.
Wanted to check if the other contributor - @anbuelan is also ok with this. if he is, I will add the license file.

[molnarg]

I'm also OK with relicensing my previous work on this.

[panarasi]

Working on a pull request for this.

[anbuelan]

BSD 2-clause is fine.

[panarasi]

@molnarg, how does the pull request look ?

@anbuelan If you think the pull request it good, can you please accept it ?

[molnarg]

Looks good to me.

[mnot]

See my comments there. Common practice is to do something like:

//Copyright (c) Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. See LICENSE.txt for licensing information.

in the files.