Hi again, Am Sonntag, den 24.04.2016, 12:47 +0530 schrieb Vasudev Kamath: > Basically if Xlib.h is missing then this part is used which is from > Xlib.h file with Open Group Public License > If we have proper dependency this #else block will not be considered, > so > how do we interpret the licensing? :-). License check tool tells me > the > file BSD-3-clause. regardless of the CPP macro being defined or not, we distribute the file as a whole in the source code, so the license of the entire file needs to be documented. So, I would say, we have two copyright holders and two licenses (BSD-3-clause and Open Group Public License) which apply for this file. Don't get fooled by licensecheck, it doesn't have a clue about complex licensing situations like this. > Both Open Group License and above license looks like permissive > license > but I'm confused on how to interpret the licensing of the entire > file. Again, it contains code by two authors, so it has two copyright holders. Also, by distributing the entire file, we have to adhere to two licenses at once, so both of them should show up in the License paragraph. > Any suggestions are welcome. Hope that helps, I am not a lawyer! > Well not really :-). If we want a proper copyright there is lot more > to do :(. Sure. But there seem to be broad rules with only a few select exceptions. Anyway, thank you very much for working on this! This is highly appreciated. - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part