Rewrite StackOverflow sourced function to avoid CC-BY-SA license claim

[BigBlueHat]

The following bit of JavaScript isn't likely even copyrightable. However, license robots choke on it because it's found on StackOverflow--and therefore under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 (per their current Terms and Conditions):

forge/lib/util.js

Lines 2261 to 2276 in 2bb97af

	/**
	* Check if an object is empty.
	*
	* Taken from:
	* http://stackoverflow.com/questions/679915/how-do-i-test-for-an-empty-javascript-object-from-json/679937#679937
	*
	* @param object the object to check.
	*/
	util.isEmpty = function(obj) {
	for(var prop in obj) {
	if(obj.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
	return false;
	}
	}
	return true;
	};

Not sure if you'd care to replace it with a rewritten variation, but that might help the robots... 😉

[davidlehn]

I'm not sure what to do with this. This code is too trivial to change and it already references the source SO comment. Any non-trivial robot would easily detect simple changes like whitespace, label renames, semantically identical refactorings, and probably semantically similar ones too. And of course the history is there to make it easy to know where the code came from. So what do the robot overlords suggest us squishy humans do? Just improve some licensing docs? Can the robot just simply submit a PR with suggested changes? Or would that make the problem worse by inheriting the license of whatever it was trained on?