On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:05:07AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > > > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the > > > intention is to make it consistent. > > > > > > The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for > > > everything in the project. > > > > > > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if > > > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about. > > > > > > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors > > > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from > > > looking at copyright notices. > > > > One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC > > ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the > > notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream > > license. > > OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation. > the majority of entries belong to Roy.
I have no idea what you mean by "it's already a violation", and I'm not sure what Gentoo Copyright has to do with it. Altering Copyright statements to try to claim Gentoo copyright would definitely be a violation, but that's not what I'm wanting to do. My goal is to centralize the Copyright and license information we already have, as much as possible [1]. This site seems to imply that moving Copyright/Author information around is legal. William [1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
