Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Two better links:
CC-by-sa:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
GFDL:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2009.04.28., at 10:13, Viktor Szakáts wrote:
I did some research and considering that ChangeLog counts as
documentation (not code), I've found the following option for
proper copyright protection for these elements of Harbour:
- Creative Commons: cc-by-sa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses
- FSF GFDL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
Both require credits to be given (attribution), cc-by-sa is also
compatible with Debian folks AFAICS.
IMO we should protect *all* our docs with such license, this
includes uppercased files in root and docs/man dirs. I'd prefer
the Creative Commons license as it's much more known than
GFDL, but please comment, I'm not a lawyer.
Brgds,
Viktor
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Phil Barnett <ph...@philb.us> wrote:
Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Hi Phil,
/* Copyright notice:
All text in this file holds the copyright of respective authors seen in
the entry headers if not indicated otherwise. Copying or other forms of
usage is only permitted while giving credit to author including his/her
full name, plus the text "Harbour Project" or "Harbour". In all other
cases, usage requires explicit permission from author. Exception:
Example
code falls under the standard Harbour license found in COPYING.
*/
---
Before you do this, please pass it in front of the FSF and ask them
if it is acceptable to maintain the GPL status. Also, I believe you
can only change the license terms of code that contains your copyright.
This only applies to text in ChangeLog, and specifically
states that everyone is aquiring this copyright note for
his/her own entries, so I'm not changing terms for anyone
else's work here. If this seems to be a problem I will
modify the text to apply only to my own entries.
I'd appreciate if someone could test this against FSF, but
for me this'd take too much time, so I probably won't be
able to do it.
All you have to do is to email it to them and ask them if it will
change the terms of our license. I believe it does and should not be
done until the FSF says it's ok. Adding this anywhere in the project
might negate our GPL protection. That would be bad.
I think it is much too late to change the license because we will not be
able to find the original authors on all code. The alternative would be
to perform a survey and see exactly how much code is involved in that limit.
Having two licenses, one for part of the code and one for another part
of the code would be a disaster.
Is this all about Attribution? Nothing personal at all here, but Vanity
is one of the seven deadly sins and leads to many downfalls. I try to
avoid all 7 of them but at times it's very difficult. We are only human.
If you really feel strongly about this and we gain community support I
have no problem with relicensing. But it's gotta be all or none.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
