---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Sandro Santilli <strk@xxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Jts-topo-suite-user] A major step along the road to LocationTech
To: Martin Davis <
mtnclimb@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jody Garnett <
jody.garnett@xxxxxxxxx>, "
jts-topo-suite-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
jts-topo-suite-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:21:33AM -0800, Martin Davis wrote:
> Not sure I follow. The files have been updated to indicate the licenses.
> What do you think they should say?
What they say now is ok, about copyright ownership:
* Copyright (C) 2016 Vivid Solutions
About applied license there's the AND issue (this is about the
single file, not the whole project, so either one or another
license is likely to apply):
* All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials
* are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0
* (
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html), and the Vivid Solutions BSD
* License v1.0 (found at the root of the repository).
Then, the LICENSE* files on the root should just contain the license,
with eventual copyright ownership of the license itself, but not copyright
ownership of the code it applies to.
LICENSE_VSI_BSD3.txt is weird in thi reguard because it starts with
"Copyright (c) 2016, Vivid Solutions Inc." which would likely mean
"Vivid Solutions" has copyright over the BSD3 license text, which is
unlikely. Same with LICENSE_MDAVIS_BSD3.txt. I think it should just
be LICENSE_BSD3, and "Vivid Solutions Inc." and "Martin Davis" should
only be in each of the source files.
Eventually, for an overview, a COPYING file could express the
licensing layout of the whole codebase mentioning roughly which
parts are under which license and owned by whom.
Does it sound ?
--strk;
