Re: [jts-dev] Fwd: [Jts-topo-suite-user] A major step along the road to

[Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah the copyright on the license file messed me up big time when I saw it in examples - it was not clear to me that the Copyright was on the license file itself. 

Here is an example of the Eclipse BSD license (https://eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php) which has a similar copyright at the top of the file. You can note that other licenses like EPL (https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html) do not have a copyright at the top of the file.  I have no idea why these kind of things are not consistent.

The good news is that JTS is in incubation so all of this will be checked prior to release.

--

Jody Garnett

On 30 January 2016 at 20:40, Martin Davis <mtnclimb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

More helpful advice.

---------- 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;

_______________________________________________
jts-dev mailing list
jts-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/jts-dev