Re: License

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com> writes:

> Hi Maciej,
> 
> On 8 Oct 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > COPYING.LIB says the stuff below the dashed lib. Would a patch to add
> > the LGPL license text to all the C and header files be accepted?
> 
>         I think not; I like the current short, and readable headers. I    
> think bowing to the death of common sense in the American legal system is
> not a good idea. Furthermore since each explicitly claims copyright for   
> someone, it would seem that we are covered. Of course, if there are
> modules without a copyright we should add one.
>   

1) None of the header files claim any copyright at all, this is a
   serious bug.

2) None of the copyright notices in the C files state the license. I
   guess you could assume the overall license applies, but what if
   someone decides that the executables like Bonobrowser, etc, should
   be GPL, or the sample code should be under a license even more
   liberal than LGPL? Or what if someone cut-n-pastes a whole file
   from Bonobo to another project? It's really best to be explicit on
   a file by file basis.

3) Most other major bits of the GNOME project have the full top of
   file comments (gnome-libs, gtk+ etc).

4) Richard Stallman may be overly paranoid about legal issues, but his
   paranoia has served the free software community well. I suggest his
   advice about how best to apply the LGPL should be given more weight
   than a bit of convenience.

5) If you still don't like the full top of file comments, how about
   just adding a statement that the license is LGPL, and where to get
   a copy of the LGPL.

 - Maciej