# Package licenses: Contemplations and considerations

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/package-licenses-contemplations-and-considerations/117922
**Category:** Community
**Tags:** package
**Created:** [August 7, 2024, 2:59pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/package-licenses-contemplations-and-considerations/117922 "2024-08-07T14:59:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 124

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)
#### Post date: [April 29, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/package-licenses-contemplations-and-considerations/117922/124 "2026-04-29T16:28:26Z")

</div>

> [@gwr](#):
>
> A single root `LICENSE` file is often sufficient for humans in simple cases, but it is a weak carrier of metadata when code is copied, vendored, split out, generated, or audited. GitHub contributor graphs and repository history also do not necessarily travel with copied files. Per-file SPDX headers are much more robust.

See also this long thread from last year (which you participated in) about the pros and cons of per-file copyright notices (in any format): [Copyright and license of Julia packages - #19 by stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/copyright-and-license-of-julia-packages/129598/19)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/package-licenses-contemplations-and-considerations/117922)._