Kunle Odutola schrieb: > Sorry about the late reply. > > [SNIP] > >> But the 4-clause license in the C# target doesn't include this text. In >> effect, it is identical with the one used by Ter while adding this: >> >> Unless explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally >> submitted for inclusion in this work to the copyright owner or licensor >> shall be under the terms and conditions of this license, without any >> additional terms or conditions. >> >> Barring the typo, this effectively says the same as the contributor >> license does. It is actually redundant and can be removed. > > It serves a similar purpose.
Why have it then there, if there is no real difference between the 4th clause and the agreement? > >> It should be removed because the contribution license points out to a >> particular BSD license - via a hypertext link to the website where the 3 >> clause license is detailed (Ter told me that this text never changed >> beyound adjusting the years). And even if it isn't mentioned in the >> license itself - one can't go around and choose a license himself. > > Actually, it doesn't. The paper copy I received just said BSD licence (hence > my initial comments about including the full licence text or URL in the > agreement). Well, the hyperlink isn't available in the paper copy, as there is no visual indication, that there is a hyperlink in the original PDF, but it doesn't invalidate my statement per se. > >> IANAL but that Ter uses a particular one already makes the intent quite >> clear which one he actually means. BTW, you didn't give each and every >> file that new license header, so effectively those files are inherently >> BSD-3 clause licensed. > > LICENCE.TXT covers all files without an explicit header. The 4th clause in > the license covers all [subsequent] contributions to the work. Including all > new files. > > [SNIP] > >> IMO, adding to every file a license header with the complete text instead >> a referral to a LICENSE.TXT is a mistake, too. With a referral the intent >> to use a particular license is clear and every contributor can add his >> name in one place without having to worry if a small bug fix is enough to >> earn his name in the license header. > > It's a work-in-progress. We decide to release early to allow you [and > others] access to source code. Just haven't had the time to go back and > complete. > > Pls contact me if you wish to continue this. > > Kunle I'm in favor of a collective LICENSE.TXT, but as long there are two licenses I won't put any effort into consolidating the headers. After all, the new files from Ter don't have the 4th clause so there is currently a mix. This mix can be cleared only via two ways: Either you and Micheal change the headers or I have to redo your efforts completely. Considering that our point of views are practically identically, using the latter option is ridiculous. Johannes _______________________________________________ antlr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.antlr.org:8080/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
