Re: [Hamlib-developer] Who's copyright on new files?

[George B. <geo...@gm...>]

Thanks for that, Nate.  On a related matter, what about the simulators?  
Right now they're not copyrighted/licensed at all. Would GPL 2.1 or 
later be appropriate for one I've done a lot of work on?

On 7/7/25 2:25 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2025 07 Jul 12:50 -0500, George Baltz wrote:
>> I'm in the process of moving some data structures out of rig.h into separate
>> include files, mostly with cut&paste.  While setting up the headers and
>> looking at other files, I wondered if there is an *official* name for
>> generic Hamlib development for the copyright declaration.  Not to get into
>> general license questions, but I'd at least like to get this in the right
>> form.
> I'd say that if it is a significant amount of your original work then
> you should note yourself as the copyright holder and licensed under the
> LGPL 2.1 as the rest of the library.
>
> In some cases I've used the name of "The Hamlib Group" which is not a
> formal entity and so probably really can't claim copyright but I mainly
> limited that to things like README files and the like where a long list
> of copyright holders isn't readable.
>
> As Hamlib is not a formal entity, each contributor should assign
> themselves as the copyright holder or add oneself to the list in the
> cases of a significant amount of contribution to existing files.  As I
> see it, we're a collection of hobbyists contributing source code for the
> use of the greater radio hobby.
>
> 73, Nate
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hamlib-developer mailing list
> Ham...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hamlib-developer