Re: License Stuff

[rodrigo linuxave net]

Reinhard Müller wrote:

> > > And, Rodrigo, you are right when you say that those copyright issues should
> > > be cleaned up.
> > > * The AUTHORS file should mention which parts of the project were done by
> > > whom; the primary purpose of AUTHORS is not to give credits to people, but
> > > to state who holds copyright on which part.
> > > * Both COPYING and COPYING.LIB must be included in case we have both
> > > GPL and LGPL parts.
> > > * The README file must clearly state which parts are GPL and which LGPL.
> > > * Also all program sources must have a valid copyright statement and the
> > > correct (LGPL vs. GPL) licence comment.
> > > The "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software" is a good source of
> > > information about such things.
> > >
> >
> > yes, you're also right. I'll start changing this as I edit files. also, all
> > authors should add their name to each source file they touch. That's the
> > correct thing, inst's it?
>
> The actual source files only have to name the _main_ copyright holder(s) of the
> file. The AUTHORS file should name everybody that made significant changes
> to the code (as a rule of thumb changes > 15 lines are significant).
> The AUTHORS file according to FSF guidelines should look like
> Michael Lausch (michael lausch at): First version of the library except xml part
> Rodrigo Moya (rodrigo linuxave net): Extensive changes in the library except xml part,
>   mysql provider, ldap provider
> Vivien Malbera (....): xml part of the library, postgres provider
> etc.

I've checked in something like this in the AUTHORS file some minutes ago.

>
> You could also consider assigning copyright to the Free Software Foundation
> (something that we at GNU Enterprise have done).
>

yes, to me this is ok, so we close at once the license issue