Hi Gonzalo, Quoting Gonzalo Odiard (2015-06-18 13:33:57) > In our project, is a common practice include a COPYING file in the > activity directory. > Include the text on every file does not have sense for us, more > thinking we still support old devices with few storage space, as the > XO-1. > Could you clarify what are you asking for, specifically, please? > In the next cycle I plan work on tools to make sure all the > information for packagers is available n the activities. Is good have > you and others involved.
What I request is that you properly release your code as Free software. Including a COPYING file (containing e.g. the full GPL v2 license) helps save space, so that each copyright holder need not repeat the full licensing terms but can refer to that common file. The presence of a COPYING file do not imply anything being licensed, however: The COPYING file _is_ a license but does not _grant_ licensing. Each and every copyright holder in a project need to license their contributions for the collective work to be Free software. A common practice is to include copyright holders and licensing at the top of each source file (each copyright holder on one line with the years that copyright holder contributed to the file, and below the license). Another practice is to list copyright holders and licensing terms as a summary in a file at the root dir of the project. That practice may be adequate in tightly streamlined projects, but for Sugar projects which at its core strongly encourage copying code snippets and forking aggressively, I strongly recommend to embed the copyright and licensing in each file so it gets preserved when copying files across projects. A project leader cannot state a license on behalf of other contributors, unless the contributors have handed over their copyright to the project leader (a practice common for some larger projects, e.g. the GNU project). Concretely, I noticed a copyright statement for Aneesh in a file, with no corresponding licensing statement, and I request that Aneesh explicitly state the licensing of that file (e.g. "GPL v2 or newer"). It is not the only inadequate licensing issue of that activity, but a more prominent flaw. Most translation files are wrongly licensed too... Hope that helps, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel