Copyright Notices

[Gary Steinert]

On Monday 02 February 2009 19:59:30 Nikolaj Hald Nielsen wrote:
> 1. that header looks like crap in gmail :-)
>
> Anyway, actually changing the license requires consent from _everyone
> who holds copyright, so I think that is a rather ambitious project. If
> you really want to go that route, I think we should standardize on the
> "2, 3 or later at KDE e.V's discretion" (IIRC) license that is already
> in use for a few files.

The license already allows for use with GPLv3, but it would just simplify 
things. As part of changing the headers i do plan to compile a list of email 
addresses of copyright holders, mostly to check that people haven't changed 
their emails and not updated the copyright info. i.e. check there is one email 
per person =P

I think I'll leave it as it is for now then. And for the record, its not meant 
to look good in gmail!!! =P

Gary Steinert
>
> - Nikolaj
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Gary Steinert <gary.steinert at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > I have noticed many inconsistencies in the copyright and license notices
> > at the top of each source file. I think that as a project, we should have
> > a standardised header for each source file, partly so that people do not
> > get confused by the licenses applied to our source code, and also simply
> > for visual consistency.
> > I am willing to put in the time to change the headers, but I'm not
> > entirely sure about the legality of changing the wording of some of the
> > headers. As far as I can tell, the header needs only to state the license
> > used, as well as the copyright holders, but I may be wrong.
> > The header I propose for every file in the project is as follows:
> > (best viewed in single spaced font =P)
> >
> > /************************************************************************
> >*** *   This file is part of Amarok                                       
> >     * *   Copyright (C) 2009 Gary Steinert <gary.steinert at gmail.com>
> > *
> > *                                                                        
> >  * *   Amarok is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify    
> >     * *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > published by   * *   the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of
> > the License, or      * *   (at your option) any later version.           
> >                         * *                                              
> >                            * *   This program is distributed in the hope
> > that it will be useful,        * *   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without
> > even the implied warranty of         * *   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
> > A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the          * *   GNU General Public License
> > for more details.                           * *                          
> >                                                * *   You should have
> > received a copy of the GNU General Public License      * *   along with
> > this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  *
> > *************************************************************************
> >**/
> >
> > Another point, as part of standardising the headers, should we start
> > using the GPLv3? Additionally, some of the files use the Mozilla MPL but
> > give the option of using solely the GPL. Should we remove the MPL or
> > leave anyone to use the code the option of distributing under that
> > license?
> >
> > Some random question I know. But I'm no copyright expert. I'm hoping
> > someone could shed some light on the best way forward.
> >
> > Gary Steinert
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amarok-devel mailing list
> > Amarok-devel at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel