Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Patrick Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I'd like for you to review my LICENSE [1] and NOTICE [2] files, [...]
Looks really nice, great attention to detail!
The only improvement I'd like to see is spelling out the exact license
conditions of the BSD licenses of the WebKit inspector code included
in weinre (now the LICENSE just references the "BSD license").
A quick browsing of the various license headers suggests the following
copyright notices and a BSD license with the explicit conditions on
not using Google's or Apple's name to endorse or promote derived
products should be included in our LICENSE file.
Copyright (C) 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 Matt Lilek ([email protected] /
[email protected])
Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Anthony Ricaud <[email protected]>
Copyright (C) 2008 Nokia Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2009 IBM Corp. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2009 Anthony Ricaud <[email protected]>
Copyright (C) 2009, 2010, 2011 Google Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2009, 2010 Joseph Pecoraro. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2009 280 North Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (C) 2010 Nikita Vasilyev. All rights reserved.
The LICENSE entry for the formidable library should preferably say
something like:
According to the Readme.md file in the Formidable library:
"Formidable is licensed under the MIT license."
That makes it clearer that this is the only explicit license
information included in the library. We might want to ask the
maintainer of this library to add an explicit LICENSE file which
explicitly spells out the MIT license terms and records the actual
copyright holder who's granting that license. Otherwise the above
reference is a bit vague (though AFAICT good enough for us for now).
BR,
Jukka Zitting
