The goal is to solve confusion of the "All rights reserved" for licensing
code under an open-source license.
The phrase "All rights reserved" comes from a historical convention that
required this phrase for the copyright protection to apply. This convention
is no longer relevant.
However, even though the phrase has no meaning in establishing the copyright
it has not lost meaning in terms of licensing.
This change makes it so code under the Blender Foundation copyright does
not use "all rights reserved". This is also how the GPL license itself
states how to apply it to the source code:
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program is free software ...
This change does not change copyright notice in cases when the copyright
is dual (BF and an author), or just an author of the code. It also does
mot change copyright which is inherited from NaN Holding BV as it needs
some further investigation about what is the proper way to handle it.
Use a shorter/simpler license convention, stops the header taking so
much space.
Follow the SPDX license specification: https://spdx.org/licenses
- C/C++/objc/objc++
- Python
- Shell Scripts
- CMake, GNUmakefile
While most of the source tree has been included
- `./extern/` was left out.
- `./intern/cycles` & `./intern/atomic` are also excluded because they
use different header conventions.
doc/license/SPDX-license-identifiers.txt has been added to list SPDX all
used identifiers.
See P2788 for the script that automated these edits.
Reviewed By: brecht, mont29, sergey
Ref D14069
This addresses warnings from Clang-Tidy's `readability-else-after-return`
rule in the `source/blender/blenlib` module. Not all warnings are
addressed in this commit.
No functional changes.
BF-admins agree to remove header information that isn't useful,
to reduce noise.
- BEGIN/END license blocks
Developers should add non license comments as separate comment blocks.
No need for separator text.
- Contributors
This is often invalid, outdated or misleading
especially when splitting files.
It's more useful to git-blame to find out who has developed the code.
See P901 for script to perform these edits.
