Hi all Hoping that the mail-snafu has blown over, I hope to resume the licensing discussion WRT my blinder.lrp (and licensing issues in general):
Since I got the responses on the 'Speaking of Licensing' thread, I've done a fair amount of reading, and have been reminded why I *loathe* paperwork :-P I think it might be practical to split this thread in two 'separate' subthreads; [legal] About the copyrights/-lefts/legalese. "What may/must I (not) do" and, [practical] on how/where to put notices, source locations etc. and so: [legal] I'm almost finished reviewing the code, and thus far the only piece that remains unchanged since I found it, is the bit that does the actual writes to the parport. I put the src at http://bund.dk/blinder/lptout.c.html It does contain a copyright notice, but as I understand it, as long as I make sure that's kept in place, then it's o.k. use/post the code(?) I've contacted the author, and am awaiting his reply. What I'm more uncertain of however, is how this plays out if I decide to release my work under the GPL? The only other thing that bears significant resemblance to any 'original' is the main part of the webinterface. As such it is, in fact, a complete rewrite of Justins index.html. But I feel that I owe it to him to give him credits, so I'm going to put an "Original design by Justin Ribeiro (C) bladablada" in that. The rest is so far removed, that I don't think I'll be stepping on anybody's toes if I declare it my own. Evenso, I will try to compile a list of references to the material that I used as guides. As for choice of license... Much as I like the idea of releasing under the GPL, it sure looks like there's a lot of 'overhead' involved, what with section 2(a,b,c)'s requierements that "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." etc. So that in the (likely) event that I make changes/updates to the software at a later time, I could spend as much time fulfilling the above requirements, as I do coding... How do you guys deal with that? The MIT-license, otoh, (appealing as it is in it's brevity) does it (legally) do anything other than make sure you get ongoing credit? [/legal] [practical] The software can be seen as divided between the 'runtime' stuff and the configuration stuff (cgi-scripts mostly) Both 'groups' are made up of a main script, and a number of 'support' scripts/programs. so for the .lrp -can I "get away" with only quoting the full copyright notice in the 'main' parts, and then make an abbreviated notice in the 'subscripts' pointing to the full quote in the main? (to save space) Also I don't see any LICENSE files in other .lrps that I've looked at. Is there a geenral concensus towards Mike's quote that "Embedded releases can't practically include full license text, so I think linking is acceptable."? As for source: Until I get around to learning how to use CVS, this software will only be available from the download area that I'm about to set up at bund.dk/blinder/download/ >From this location I will make available the blinder.lrp itself and a tarball of src/everything. Am I to understand that what Ray meant by "I never see the full text of licenses included in the actual source code files themselves, though an accompanying LICENSE file is fairly common with the source packages." is that said LICENSE file should hold a *full* quote of <whichever> license? [/practical] PHEW!!! -sorry, this got somewhat longer than I intended, but I hope it's not too much... TIA Jon Clausen ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
