What's fun is hearing "No copyright needed, I got it off Stack Overflow!"
...wrong > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Mark Atwood <fallenpega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and Blackduck will be able to > recognize the SPDX tags, and the Copyright text. > > > In our file ntpsec/devel/hacking.txt : > > We use the SPDX convention for inclusion by reference. You can read about > this at > > http://spdx.org/licenses > > When you create a new file, mark it as follows (updating the year) as > required: > > ------------------------------------------------ > > /* Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors > > * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause > > */ > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > For documentation: > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > // Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0 > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Modify as needed for whatever comment syntax the language or markup uses. > Good places for these markings are at the end of an extended > > header comment, or at the very top of the file. > > > > When you modify a file, leave existing copyright markings in place - > especially all references to Dr. Dave Mills, to Mr. Harlan Stenn, and > > to the Network Time Foundation. > > > > You *may* add a project copyright and replace the inline license with an SPDX > tag. For example: > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > /* Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors > > * SPDX-License-Identifier: NTP > > */ > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:44 AM Daniel Poirot <dtpoi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and BlackDuck will match a >> snippet and attribute to the FOSS project. >> >> >>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Mark Atwood <fallenpega...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> That's... complicated. >>> >>> We don't need to have a notice attached to every file, because there is a >>> copyright notice attached to the project as a whole, and there is a notice >>> attached to each repo. Individual files generally don't each need their >>> own notice, since individual files generally no longer get "detached" from >>> a project or tree. >>> >>> But, if you were to copy in a substantial amount of text from another >>> source, you should make sure that the copyright from that source is >>> properly declared, right next to the text pulled in. >>> >>> Also, however, documentation is a bit unusual in that it is much more >>> likely to be detached and separately distributed from the rest of the >>> project. We should make sure that if the documentation is ever printed >>> out, or is separately displayed on sites like man7.org, that a copyright >>> notice should be readable. >>> >>> ..m >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:55 AM Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> fallenpega...@gmail.com said: >>> > Right now our standard copyright text is "Copyright >>> > $YEAR_YOU_ARE_WRITING_THI >>> > S by the NTP Project contributors" >>> >>> Should the documentation files have a copyright notice? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> These are my opinions. I hate spam. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> devel@ntpsec.org >>> http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
