From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson [mailto:glennrp@gmail.com]
>A reference to the "libpng license" is added to each source
>file.
So, just to be absolutely clear, the official name of the license (where
"official" means what the copyright holder asserts the name should be) is
now the "libpng" license - right?
Therefore in the block to the right of the Wikipedia "libpng" page "License"
should say "libpng" (not zlib/libpng).
It is, of course, not unreasonable for someone to refer to the "zlib/libpng"
license meaning "either the 'zlib license' or the 'libpng license'" and
implying the common features of the two licenses.
I suggest that *iff* the license on the source is substantially revised then
a different name should be used, so that "libpng license" consistently
refers to the various versions of the current license that differ only in
contributors and, maybe in the future, copyright holder. That the "libpng
license" is the license *with* the UCITA text and should anyone want to
refer to the earlier versions without it that person should come up with a
new name.
This may seem somewhat restrictive, but it gives the lawyers a clear
guarantee - the contributors might change (by addition), in extremis the
copyright holder might change, but nothing else.
BTW I assign any copyright I might have in my contributions to the overall
copyright holder (i.e. currently Glenn), I have certainly received adequate
compensation in all the things I have learnt on this list.
John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
|
