On 2011-03-15 09:45:51 Nick Douma wrote: >Basically for my own files: > ><my copyright line> ><gpl header> Yes. >for the original authors files: > ><his copyright line> ><MIT header> Yes. Although, you might also want to add the GPL header. It's not necessary until you start modifying the file; but doing it now does no harm other than making the diff against upstream bigger. >for modified files: > ><my copyright line> ><his copyright line> ><MIT header> These should definitely include the GPL header. The MIT header should be preceded with a note that earlier versions where under this license in their entirety but that current versions retain the notice only to satisfy the terms of the original license and redistribution of current versions has additional restrictions (the GPL, in specific). IIRC, there's a file or two in the Linux kernel source that went 2-clause BSD -> GPLv2+ that establish a good model for how to clearly mention them both in the source itself. Not including the GPL header could confuse the recipients into thinking that your changes to existing files are available under the MIT license. I'm assuming that you don't want that to be the case. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.