On 30 June 2011 18:41, Peter Bessman <peter@...> wrote:
> I could care less about licensing myself. I'm pretty sure that so long as
> it's some flavor of GPL it's fine.
> I don't think there's any requirement for the AUTHORS file. That's just a
> nice gesture.
The template license text suggested to me, includes a line "Copyright
(C) <year> <name of author>". Some files I've barely touched, while
others I have made substantial changes to. I'm unsure what to do. The
patch.[ch] files in Specimen for example, have spawned a whole sub
directory of smaller files in Petri-Foo. Mind you, I see that there
was no copyright notice in the original anyway, and grep -i copyright
-R turns up nothing.
Does a GPL notice require a copyright line?
> 2011/6/30 James Morris <jwm.art.net@...>
>> Grumble grumble.... A bug about the licensing of petri-foo has been
>> opened... I am not knowledgeable nor motivated by licensing.
>> Additionally I am thinking about using GPL-V3 instead of GPL-V2 simply
>> because it's newer so it must be better.
>> I can do this right? The person has provided a simple license template
>> which should be pasted at the top of every (both .h and .c?) source
>> About authors, I guess I need to include the names of the original
>> authors. But, as an example, patch.[ch] has been split not only into
>> several files, but also into a sub directory. Any recommendations
>> Specimen mailing list