Thanks to the fine script from Jürgen and hist help I can say we are now down to about
186 Files having in UNKNOWN license out of 2073 files which should have a license I've seen there are a some in GdalTools db_manager some in the scripts directory itself grass and some in the tests subdirectory and then there are some which license unfortunately is not getting recognised by the licensechecker and mistakenly set as "UNKNOWN" but at least I see a huge progress in having lesser not licensed files in the source tree .. if you have time please have a look through your files and add a proper header thanks a lot Werner On 10/04/2012 04:00 PM, Victor Olaya wrote: >>> I don't see why sextante in qgis has to change from MIT to GPL, does >>> it really have to? >>> No, it does not have to, from a legal point of view. >>> >> I do not think it has changed: java and python versions have no code in >> common, so the author simply chose a different licence. >> All the best. > > Just to make clear. I prefer the MIT license in the case of the Java > version, as it is meant to be used in many different apps (it is a > library). I the python case, it is just a QGIS plugin, so I do not see > much difference and i am happy with GPL as well. I think is a better > idea, so as to have a homogeneous licensing across QGIS code. > > Regards > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
