license: document files under MPL-2 and CDDL

[dholbach]

No description provided.

[errordeveloper]

I believe there are license files already in vendor/, maybe you can simply point at those instead of adding new copies? Also, I don't think we actually use the code as such.

[dholbach]

I'm trying to follow the instructions on https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b - sorry for not pointing this out in the PR description.

[errordeveloper]

So you are saying that APL guideline dictate this convention of having LICENSE.<TYPE> in top-level directory?

[dholbach]

I'm happy to call the license file whatever we want - I just wanted to make them distinguishable.

https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b says:
"By attaching an appropriate and prominent label to the distribution, and requiring an explicit action by the user to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from those of the Apache License. Please include the URL to the product's homepage in the prominent label. An appropriate and prominent label is a label the user will read while learning about the distribution - for example in a README. Please also ensure to comply with any attribution/notice requirements in the specific license in question."

So we could add it to README too.

[dholbach]

I updated the PR and it reflects current vendoring reality.

If you prefer, I could re-do the PR to add a brief section to README.md about licenses. It's what is suggested on the Apache Legal site.

hcl includes a copy of the MPL-2.0 license, so just pointing to that should be fine AFAIUI.

gopass includes terminal_solaris.go which is under CDDL-1.0, but it just contains a brief bit in the header, not the full license text. §3.1 of the license seems to require this though.

LMK what you think.

[dholbach]

Sorry, please review again - basically I just "updated the branch" locally. Did another review of the source, it's fine right now (7701fdc).