CException is missing a license file about cexception HOT 6 CLOSED

@swaldhoer -- I've corrected the license handling. It's now consistent with the other projects.

I looked into the SPDX identifiers. It's a simple process and I definitely see a place for it. The only downside is that the required Linux Foundation membership is rather costly. I'll leave this issue open and can hopefully do this in the future.

from cexception.

My mistake. I see the important bits of information now. When I first went to the site, it had a popup talking about membership and I assumed that was necessary. Thanks for the followup!

from cexception.

Great point. Thanks for noticing!

from cexception.

@mvandervoord Would you be willing to also include an SPDX identifier to the sources? This would make the creation of an SBOM way simpler and is not really much effort to do that on source side (and on consumer side it creates effort).

Adding SPDX identifiers is simple for licenses like MIT, see https://spdx.dev/learn/handling-license-info.

from cexception.

@swaldhoer -- I've corrected the license handling. It's now consistent with the other projects.

perfect, thank you!

I looked into the SPDX identifiers. It's a simple process and I definitely see a place for it. The only downside is that the required Linux Foundation membership is rather costly.

Sorry, I don't understand this point. What is the relation between adding a SPDX identifier to the source code and a required Linux Foundation membership.
Do you mean you need to be a member of the Linux Foundation in order to be allowed to add a SPD identifer to the source code? If so, could you point me to that source? I have never read or heard of that.

from cexception.

Fixed in 18d020c and df9af17.

from cexception.