Hello,
I'm seeking your advise regarding DEP-5 application:
I'm documenting copyright/licensing for a software released under GPL-3+
##
## Files: *
## Copyright: © 1995-2001,2003-2008 Free Software Foundation
## License: GPL-3+
##
But most files have GPL-2+ header which can be written as
##
## Files: *
## Copyright: © 2001-2002,2004-2007 Joe the developer <joe@dev.org>
## © 1997-2004 John Smith <john.smith@gmeel.com>
## License: GPL-2+
##
1) Question #1: what would be the best way to emphasise/distinguish
difference between license of a software as a whole from the license
of the most of its source files?
Some files have LGPL header which qualify for a separate paragraph (according
to DEP-5):
##
## Files:
## src/gnome-utils/gnc-date-format.c
## src/gnome-utils/gnc-date-format.h
## Copyright: © 2003 Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
## License: LGPL-2+
##
Some files under same LGPL-2+ have slightly different copyright:
##
## Files:
## src/gnome-utils/gnc-account-sel.c
## src/gnome-utils/gnc-account-sel.h
## Copyright: © 2002 Joshua Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>
## © 2006 David Hampton <hampton@employees.org>
## License: LGPL-2+
##
Which raise question #2:
2) Would it be accurate to merge two paragraphs above if there
is no overlapping copyrights (but the same license) or
is it better to keep two separate paragraphs?
But it's getting more complicated: some files do have copyright but no license
##
## Files:
## src/register/register-core/gncmod-register-core.c
## src/register/register-gnome/gncmod-register-gnome.c
## Copyright: © 2001 Linux Developers Group, Inc
## License: UNKNOWN
##
Clearly UNKNOWN is not a valid license, which raises question #3:
3) Would it be correct to assume that files with lack of license header
are covered by the license of a software as a whole, and therefore
their copyright can be added to the very first DEP-5 paragraph
or
if such files qualify for standalone paragraph? (If latter is true,
what's would be the best to put in License field?)
There is another group of files in the package - those without copyright but
with license header:
##
## Files:
## src/register/register-core/gtable.c
## src/register/register-core/gtable.h
## Copyright: *No copyright*
## License: GPL-2+
##
I recall one case when source file without explicit copyright was borrowed
from gnumeric project so all gnumeric contributors were mentioned in comment
due to difficulties of establishing file's ownership.
If this is the case it raises question #4:
4) Are the files with license header but no copyright, qualify for inclusion
into second DEP-5 paragraph listing most of the contributors releasing
files under matching license? (This is a license of roughly >95% of
files in the package)
or
if it will be better to list such files in separate paragraph?
(If latter is the case what to put into Copyright field?)
.
Basically it is about if such files are considered to be copyrighted
by all the contributors
or by the releasing entity?
(If file have license attached it can't be in public domain, right?)
There are some files with neither licence nor copyright in header.
This is a very common situation and to best of my knowledge such files are
covered by the first paragraph, describing license and ownership of software
as a whole unless stated otherwise. Yet the question is
5) Are files with no license and no copyright qualify for standalone
paragraph? (If not where would be the best to list them)
Finally I found some files with copyright and quote
"This file is free software. See COPYING for details."
For such files I'm not too sure what to put into License field as it appears
to be a reference to a current software license i.e. GPL-3+ but it doesn't say
it specifically. Perhaps it might be similar to question #3 where license is
not listed at all.
6) What would be the best way to describe such files according to DEP-5
if this difference is significant?
I think it would be nice to have answers to this questions listed somewhere,
perhaps as a comment to DEP-5 specification or in DEP-5 FAQ.
The situations I describe are quite common and we'd better have some
guidelines regarding best practice how to document such cases.
Current DEP-5 is good, but we are certainly need more information how to apply
it properly.
Thank you.
All the best,
Dmitry.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.