Petri-Foo

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.

2011/6/30 James Morris <jwm.art.net@...>

> Hello,
>
> 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
> file.
>
> 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
> here?
>
> Cheers,
> James.
> _______________________________________________
> Specimen mailing list
> Specimen@...
> http://zhevny.com/mailman/listinfo/specimen
>

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?

James.



>
> 2011/6/30 James Morris <jwm.art.net@...>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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
>> file.
>>
>> 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
>> here?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Specimen mailing list
>> Specimen@...
>> http://zhevny.com/mailman/listinfo/specimen
>
>

Excerpts from James Morris's message of 2011-06-30 19:39:34 +0200:
> Hello,
> 
> 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
> file.
> 
> 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
> here?
> 
> Cheers,
> James.

Whether you can use the v3 depends on whether 'or later' is present or
was removed from the v2 license headers.

I wonder myself about the best way to attribute original authors when
there were multiple authors for a file. The safe way would be to
attribute all of them, the best way probably to ask each one of them.
I'd ask on LAD or some other list with lots of experienced people.

The GNU page has lots of information regarding the licenses. I think
I've seen a compatibility chart too, but I can't find it atm., this is
the best I got with a quick search:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Regards,
Philipp