Beman Standard drafted

I created a draft for the Beman standard which provides requirements and recommendations for Beman projects (PR, Rendered Version). I’m looking for any/all feedback on this initial version.

The draft’s recommended license is Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception. This is a popular license (which eases adoption within organizations) and addresses patent concerns where the others do not.

Some recommendations differ from what’s in the example repository (e.g. LICENSE vs. LICENSE.txt). Anyone interested in creating a PR that puts the example repository in conformance?

2 Likes

Dumb question for my benefit because I like knowing everything about project structure guidelines.

What’s better about a LICENSE file compared to a LICENSE.txt file? Are we watching our ASCII budget?

EDIT: For what it’s worth, from what I can tell, being friendly to relevant license scanning tech is the biggest requirement from what I can tell. Making sure the license shows up on GitHub UX to match our expectations is probably a good enough goal along those lines, at least for now.

No such thing…

A quick look into existing repositories showed LICENSE to be much more prevalent than LICENSE.txt. Additionally, creating a new repository using the GitHub interface creates a LICENSE file.

2 Likes

I’ve put comments in the PR.

2 minor comments / suggestions from my side. Otherwise, LGTM.