Repolinter Rust check: Rust/Crates projects don't typically add license in source files

[mynameistechno]

Konrad mentioned this. I looked at a few github links/source for top projects at crates.io and this seems to be the case.

The community uses cargo.toml to specify the license:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-license-and-license-file-fields

We could remove *.rs from the source license header check and instead enforce that cargo.toml has the license property.

For the two Rust projects we have, we can submit PRs to add the license property to their cargo.toml files https://github.com/orgs/quic/repositories?q=language%3ARust

@craigez any concerns?

[craigez]

I'm surprised to learn that the entire community doesn't put the copyright/license in the source files. That is not the guidance I'd be giving people, nor do I think our lawyers would be happy with that approach. Is there an underlying reason this typical practice isn't followed?

[quic-kdybcio]

It may be that the community is violating some of the licenses with that.. For example Apache-2.0 says:

b. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files

Of course prominent notices could be interpreted a million different ways, depending on which side of the lawsuit you're on, but in any case, the obvious interpretation is probably in order here...