Move third_party/gif's license into its own file

Move third_party/gif's license into its own file
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search?issue=2448573002

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/b1094bc692f0a831d49f332e9cdc2abffc112750

[scroggo_chromium, 2016-10-24 19:18:31]

Description was changed from

==========
Move third_party/gif's license into its own file
==========

to

==========
Move third_party/gif's license into its own file
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search?issue=2448573002
==========

[scroggo, 2016-10-24 19:20:27]

scroggo@google.com changed reviewers:
+ benjaminwagner@google.com, hcm@google.com, scroggo@google.com

[scroggo, 2016-10-24 19:20:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE
File third_party/gif/LICENSE (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE#new...
third_party/gif/LICENSE:14: * The Original Code is mozilla.org code.
I arbitrarily used the LICENSE BLOCK from the cpp file. Two differences:

- On this line, the header says "The Original Code is Mozilla Communicator
client code."

- The header lists no contributors

Is this the correct thing to do?

[hcm, 2016-10-24 19:26:25]

On 2016/10/24 19:20:28, scroggo wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE
> File third_party/gif/LICENSE (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE#new...
> third_party/gif/LICENSE:14: * The Original Code is http://mozilla.org code.
> I arbitrarily used the LICENSE BLOCK from the cpp file. Two differences:
> 
> - On this line, the header says "The Original Code is Mozilla Communicator
> client code."
> 
> - The header lists no contributors
> 
> Is this the correct thing to do?

LGTM- extracting to a separate file is more an ease-of-enforcement- the
respective files will maintain their differences.

[scroggo, 2016-10-24 19:28:30]

On 2016/10/24 19:26:25, hcm wrote:
> On 2016/10/24 19:20:28, scroggo wrote:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE
> > File third_party/gif/LICENSE (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE#new...
> > third_party/gif/LICENSE:14: * The Original Code is http://mozilla.org code.
> > I arbitrarily used the LICENSE BLOCK from the cpp file. Two differences:
> > 
> > - On this line, the header says "The Original Code is Mozilla Communicator
> > client code."
> > 
> > - The header lists no contributors
> > 
> > Is this the correct thing to do?
> 
> LGTM- extracting to a separate file is more an ease-of-enforcement- the
> respective files will maintain their differences.

Oh wait - I deleted the LICENSE from the .h and .cpp files. Should I put them
back?

[hcm, 2016-10-24 19:57:33]

On 2016/10/24 19:28:30, scroggo wrote:
> On 2016/10/24 19:26:25, hcm wrote:
> > On 2016/10/24 19:20:28, scroggo wrote:
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE
> > > File third_party/gif/LICENSE (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE#new...
> > > third_party/gif/LICENSE:14: * The Original Code is http://mozilla.org
code.
> > > I arbitrarily used the LICENSE BLOCK from the cpp file. Two differences:
> > > 
> > > - On this line, the header says "The Original Code is Mozilla Communicator
> > > client code."
> > > 
> > > - The header lists no contributors
> > > 
> > > Is this the correct thing to do?
> > 
> > LGTM- extracting to a separate file is more an ease-of-enforcement- the
> > respective files will maintain their differences.
> 
> Oh wait - I deleted the LICENSE from the .h and .cpp files. Should I put them
> back?

Ah yes, missed that, we should leave them as they were.

[scroggo_chromium, 2016-10-24 20:38:46]

On 2016/10/24 19:57:33, hcm wrote:
> On 2016/10/24 19:28:30, scroggo wrote:
> > On 2016/10/24 19:26:25, hcm wrote:
> > > On 2016/10/24 19:20:28, scroggo wrote:
> > > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE
> > > > File third_party/gif/LICENSE (right):
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/diff/1/third_party/gif/LICENSE#new...
> > > > third_party/gif/LICENSE:14: * The Original Code is http://mozilla.org
> code.
> > > > I arbitrarily used the LICENSE BLOCK from the cpp file. Two differences:
> > > > 
> > > > - On this line, the header says "The Original Code is Mozilla
Communicator
> > > > client code."
> > > > 
> > > > - The header lists no contributors
> > > > 
> > > > Is this the correct thing to do?
> > > 
> > > LGTM- extracting to a separate file is more an ease-of-enforcement- the
> > > respective files will maintain their differences.
> > 
> > Oh wait - I deleted the LICENSE from the .h and .cpp files. Should I put
them
> > back?
> 
> Ah yes, missed that, we should leave them as they were.

Done.

[scroggo_chromium, 2016-10-24 20:38:50]

The CQ bit was checked by scroggo@chromium.org

[scroggo_chromium, 2016-10-24 20:38:50]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from hcm@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2448573002/#ps20001
(title: "Revive in-file LICENSE blocks")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 20:38:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 20:58:29]

Description was changed from

==========
Move third_party/gif's license into its own file
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search?issue=2448573002
==========

to

==========
Move third_party/gif's license into its own file
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search?issue=2448573002

Committed:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/b1094bc692f0a831d49f332e9cdc2abffc112750
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 20:58:30]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/b1094bc692f0a831d49f332e9cdc2abffc112750