License builder tool

[rvagg]

Added tools/license-builder.sh to construct the LICENSE file from the licenses of all the dependencies used by Node.

Re-ordered the licenses alphabetically within dependency type groups:

• Dependencies bundled in Node.js
  • C-Ares
  • HTTP Parser
  • ICU
  • libuv
  • OpenSSL
  • Punycode.js
  • V8
  • libuv (newly included)
• npm
• Build tools
  • GYP
  • marked
• Test tools
  • cpplint.py
  • ESLint
  • gtest
  • node-weak

Additionally:

• Cleaned up naming to be consistent with what each of these projects appear to want to be called.
• Made the lead for each license consistent NAME, located at LOCATION, is licensed as follows:
• Stripped out comment syntax, HTML and other unnecessary guff from licenses that have them (e.g. where they are included in source files and need it to be in comments)

It's surprising how far out of sync we are with our dependency licenses cause we don't have a tool or procedure to keep them updated.

This probably needs to wait at least until we get results from #3979 but I'd like us to have a tool that keeps our rules consistent and lets us ensure our LICENSE is up to date.

/cc @mikeal

[rvagg]

renamed "C-Ares" to "c-ares", realised that I can't find reference to that capitalisation on the internet

[jasnell]

Rubber stamp LGTM

[rvagg]

@nodejs/ctc anyone want to weigh in here? the work here is for consistency (lots of variation in how licenses are introduced and presented) and completeness (some are missing) with a bit of reordering according to the grouping above. I haven't touched the top bit, leaving that for when we finally get legal advice on it but tbh I'm not holding my breath for that happening. Once we have a tool in place, we can adjust it according to any official advice we get from lawyers.

[jasnell]

Nothing further really. Let's get the PR landed and get the tool in place, we can tweak and iterate from there.

[Fishrock123]

rubber-stamp lgtm

[rvagg]

Landed @ 031b87d & d91646b, improvements can come via PR.

OSX installer is as ugly as ever, no surprises there

The Windows installer is meant to use an RTF rendering of this doc, hence the additional formatting in there. I don't have a Windows machine handy right now due to a big office cleanup, could someone from @nodejs/platform-windows please grab an msi from https://nodejs.org/download/nightly/v5.4.2-nightly20160114e855b596f4/ and screenshot the license screen for us?

[rvagg]

fwiw I'm hoping we can deal with the OSX formatting along with #2571 but I haven't looked at it yet (which is why it's still in limbo!)

[seishun]

@rvagg This one?

[rvagg]

Yep, that looks OK I think @seishun, if you do a scroll through does it look ok (as far as these things go), i.e. proper formatting rather than markdown?

[seishun]

Does this count as proper formatting?

Otherwise everything looks ok.

[rvagg]

bah, that doesn't look right .. probably need to tweak either the LICENSE.md format or the rtf converter.

Will leave this issue open as a reminder, to myself or anyone else wanting to tackle this job (hint: ./tools/license2rtf.js).

[rvagg]

and thanks for being responsive on this @seishun!