docs: Add REUSE.toml - #2328

Does this help with collating the licenses for all our dependencies and putting them in the release packages?

I thought it would, but I must have mistaken it with something else. REUSE apparently only helps with the code within the repo.

Rust seems to have a homegrown tool for dependencies license handling.

This is how failed REUSE check looks like: https://github.com/wild-linker/wild/actions/runs/31602029051/job/94131575815?pr=2328

Are we interested in going on with this?

I'm unsure what I think about having to update it each time you add a file or directory to the root. I guess at least we don't have to for subdirectories and it would perhaps encourage us to put less files in the root - e.g. maybe we need a docs directory.

It's also a bit annoying that we have to add a second copy of the license files. i.e. we have them in the LICENSES directory when we already have them in the root. Relatedly, the license files in the root are themselves listed as being dual Apache2+MIT, which seems unlikely.

I guess this is mostly of use for people wanting to use libwild as part of some other project.

It's also a bit annoying that we have to add a second copy of the license files. i.e. we have them in the LICENSES directory when we already have them in the root. Relatedly, the license files in the root are themselves listed as being dual Apache2+MIT, which seems unlikely.

Yeah, that's annoying but on the upside reuse tool manages them by itself. So, you can just run reuse download --all when adding a new one.

I guess this is mostly of use for people wanting to use libwild as part of some other project.

TBH I'm a bit lost here. Previously I thought REUSE would take care of the deps, so this would cover cases for both packaging Wild and using as a library. But now I don't know if this change is even worth pushing for.

TBH I'm a bit lost here. Previously I thought REUSE would take care of the deps, so this would cover cases for both packaging Wild and using as a library.

Their FAQ say that helping with licenses for dependencies is out of scope for REUSE.

But now I don't know if this change is even worth pushing for.

Yeah, it does seem to be of pretty limited use - especially given that all of our code is under the same licenses. But the cost of maintaining it doesn't seem too onerous, so I don't object to merging this if you want to.