The repository-level LICENSE.txt identifies ALPS as MIT-licensed. However, a number of source files, tools, and tutorials still contain headers referring to the older “ALPS Library License” or “ALPS Application License,” sometimes with conditions that differ from MIT.
Could anyone clarify whether these per-file notices are:
- Historical headers that are now outdated and should be replaced with an MIT/SPDX notice; or
- Intentional licensing exceptions that still apply to those specific files?
If they are outdated, I propose updating the affected headers to:
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
It may also make sense to remove obsolete tooling that generates or enforces the old license headers.
If any files intentionally remain under a different license—particularly bundled third-party code—it would be helpful to document those exceptions explicitly and preserve their required notices.
The repository-level
LICENSE.txtidentifies ALPS as MIT-licensed. However, a number of source files, tools, and tutorials still contain headers referring to the older “ALPS Library License” or “ALPS Application License,” sometimes with conditions that differ from MIT.Could anyone clarify whether these per-file notices are:
If they are outdated, I propose updating the affected headers to:
SPDX-License-Identifier: MITIt may also make sense to remove obsolete tooling that generates or enforces the old license headers.
If any files intentionally remain under a different license—particularly bundled third-party code—it would be helpful to document those exceptions explicitly and preserve their required notices.