License info in file headers

[hrieke]

Hi guys,

Would it be possible to add a line to the header stating which license the file is covered under?
Thank you,

[diegobernardes]

Could you provide more details why you need this? The license is at the root of the package.

[hrieke]

So the proper license can be assigned to the file that is it covered under.
Unless you actually mean that both the Apache License 2.0 and MIT no attribution licenses apply to all the files (in which case the LICENSE-SUMMARY is wrong).

Thanks

[Alex-Vaduva]

I'm also interested in this topic.
If adding a line to the header of each file is to much work, and each folder is licensed under only one license, you can specify in the LICENSE-SUMMARY, the license that applies on each folder.

For me the issue is (from an OSS audit point of view) what license applies on each file.
My understanding from the LICENSE-SUMMARY with the minimum technical background that I have, is that the MIT No Attribution applies only on files from the lambda and lambdacontext folders and the rest of the files are under Apache 2.0. But another person may think that it is not like that. Therefore confusion and everyone is sad.

[bmoffatt]

To be clear: LICENSE-LAMBDACODE applies only to examples of lambda functions, like those written inline in the READMEs. The rest of the project is licensed under Apache 2.0

[hrieke]

Thank you for the clarification there Bryan.

So it is safe to assume then that only the examples in the READMEs are MIT No Attribution licensed, and the remainder is Apache License 2.0.

The reason why I asked, and why Alex is following up is that things that might be perfectly clear to one person, can be as opaque as a Starbucks' coffee to someone else.
Could you please update LICENSE-LAMBACODE to include your statement of which it covers, it could make a lot of people happy.

Thank you & Happy Holidays.