Daniel Baumann wrote: > ok, now everything is fine except the copyright file. Updated once again. I have listed all copyright holders. Virtually every file in this library have different licence: BOOST, 4-BSD, 3-BSD and others. Even one copyright holder have files on more then one license. Do I need to list each file and its licence (or files grouped by license)? There are ~800 files to check!? I have put licenses for code portions like zlib routines or xml parser. Providing which file has which license in such case is overkill, isn't it? > btw, just curious: are there any reasons to not use the -ssl tarball > from upstream? This problem is known as "OpenSSL and GPL software". What happen if there is a GPL software (and I'm not copyright holder). I extend its functionality using POCO classes (assumes that POCO is linked against OpenSSL). Will copyright holders claim that I infringe on their rights? This can be enough complicated without SSL as some parts of POCO have 4 clauses (while other 3 clauses) BSD license. So maybe we do not need to care. Should I prepare both ssl and non-ssl packages? Or ssl only? > and, are you going to package the docs (assumed they are > redistributable, i didn't check for that)? Yes, but if it is another upstream tarball should I make another source package? -- Krzysztof Burghardt <krzysztof@burghardt.pl> http://www.burghardt.pl/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= listu podpisana cyfrowo