Sort out licenses about erlware_commons HOT 2 CLOSED

The COPYING file spells out the licensing of the code quite clearly. I don't see any reason to include it in the readme as well. There is some argument for calling that file LICENSE instead of COPYING and that's a discussion worth having.

This packages is quite obviously licensed under the license found in COPYING. So your assumption is incorrect and a bit nonsensical given the COPYING file. If you had happened across the a single file from this package somewhere, it would make more sense. However, I get the impression that you are simply trying to be pedantic here.

That said, having a one line reference and link to a license might be useful in the situation where someone copies a single file out somewhere, but I am unsure that that is worth the clutter.

from erlware_commons.

I only noticed that some files carry an explicit license notice while others do not and from that concluded that those without are of uncertain licensing status.

I see your point that looking at it in context the COPYING file should be enough and those explicit, within-file licensing statements are just redundant.

from erlware_commons.