License the project clearly #319
Conversation
|
GPL license is not named correctly. |
|
I don't think asking every single person for license stuff is a good idea. |
This adds a LICENSE file that describes which licenses this project is licensed under. This is very important, as the project is licensed under three licenses. Also added are copyright notices to the wscript files. I added myself as copyright holder to them, but there are other people who have contributed to these files which should have their name in the copyright header. Clearly stating the license of the wscript files should have been done long ago.
|
@falkTX Oops, I have fixed the GPL-2. I also removed the .0 from GPL-2.0. Okay, then because the build system had no license maybe it is fine to license it as GPL-2, even in the absence of other contributors. I think it is still a good idea to have a clear license on the build system. I at least feel confused with no clear definite headers, since there are effectively three licenses floating around in the project. I mean: which license would apply if someone would copy a |
|
It would be fantastic if licensing is reviewed/added (where/if needed) for the next release. |
|
Sorry for such a long time on this issue. I like it overall, but I think the root LICENSE file is confusing/misleading. |
|
jackdbus is GPL as well. I'm dealing with this issue in "licenses" branches of the LADI repos for jack2 and jackdbus. @falkTX As source distribution via git or tarballs ship wscript and because wscripts are actually programs, although auxilary for jack2&jackdbus themselves, IMO it makes sense to extend licensing for wscripts. Authorship is trackable via git. So even if maybe being harder to communicate, it will be useful if other authors that contributed to wscript build system give their point of view on the licensing them. For similar issue with cdbus in ladish (but actually also used in jackdbus), @imaami did a gpg-signed message in git tag: https://github.com/LADI/ladish/releases/tag/dbus_helpers_gpl_afl |
|
Merged into LADI/jack2 codebase: LADI/jack2@69b04be |
Please stop referring to the ladi forks, it clutters the notifications with no information useful for other developers here. |
|
@falkTX The information is provided so to improve collaboration for mutual benefit. |
|
Merged into LADI/jackdbus codebase: LADI/jackdbus@c4d0565 |
Currently the project has no clear license file. This is not a good state since it forces users and downstream maintainers to go through the project and find out which licenses the project is licensed under. This PR adds a LICENSE file describing which licenses this project is under, and the actual licenses. Note that the GPL and LGPL states that a copy of the license should be distributed with the project, which has not been the case before, so that is addressed too.
The C and C++ sources all have decent copyright headers. However, that has not been the case for the
wscriptfiles. Thus, another important change is that these files are explicitly put under the GPL-2. The reason this is important is because the project is essentially triple licensed; GPL-2 (binaries), LGPL-2.1 (library) and BSD-2 (upstream waf build system), so which license were thewscriptfiles under from the beginning? There are other people who have changed thewscriptfiles so they should in fact be attributed in the copyright headers.What do you think @falkTX should we send a mail to Jack-Devel asking all contributors to add themselves to the the copyright header. Alternatively I could add them in this PR. This is most likely also a good idea in case someone opposes to have their contribution put under the GPL-2.