[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cc65 licensing

Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:

> You are really making me upset. As you can see from Benjamin Cutlers attempts
> to find old code in the current sources, I could have easily claimed that all
> code was written by me - no one would have noticed. I haven't done that. In
> fact, I have marked new and rewritten modules clearly as such by attaching a
> notice, while leaving files with old code in the state I got them. In addition
> to that, I have added notes about JRDs copyright to the new docs and to the
> web page. I'm also distributing the original copyright.jrd file with the
> compiler sources. And I'm stating that cc65 is not alone my work on every
> possible occasion (for example when asked by Benjamin Cutler). After all this,
> you're coming up with some ridiculous claims. You did even accuse me of
> "muddling with licenses" without actually looking at the sources we're talking
> about (your FTP download was done *after* the mail with the accusations). In
> my eyes you are a real sucker. Go away.

Don't be obtuse.  You only put your license header in files you wrote;
fine.  In non-source files, you write "In acknowledgment of this
copyright, I will place my own changes to the compiler under the same
copyright" where "this copyright" is JRD's license.  I don't know how
to interpret "the compiler" as anything except the set of (all) source
files for that program.

Those four files you say have JRD's code in them, though, what is in
their headers?

 * expr.c
 * Ullrich von Bassewitz, 21.06.1998

 * expr.h
 * Ullrich von Bassewitz, 21.06.1998

/* C pre-processor functions */

 * preproc.h
 * Ullrich von Bassewitz, 07.06.1998

There is no hint that these contain JRD's code.  Since you claim that
the other files in the compiler fall under your (new) license, there
is no clear indication that these fall under his (old) license.  If
every file were like preproc.c, I would accept it as the logical thing
to look outside the source files for copyright or license information,
even though that is bad practice for free software.  But preproc.c is
unique: Every other source file has your name -- and your name alone
-- in it.

I maintain my original assertion.  I have seen nothing to suggest that
license information is sufficiently indicated or that you exercised
due care to preserve that information when you added your name but not


Reply to: