I discussed with Tuukka Turunen and his opinion was that even something is not
developed further, but it is available, copyrights should be the correct ones.
But as said this is not the most urgent issue and priority is low.
And sorry if the examples I used were fixed already. I got those examples from
Janne Anttila over a month ago and this was just pending in my emails :/
I hope that someone more technical person could reply to Laszlo if "license
checker bot" would be possible or a good idea?
-Olli
-----Original Message-----
From: Of Oswald Buddenhagen
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:28:13AM +0000, Hirvonen Olli wrote:
> 1. "Copyright (C) 2012 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies)" or
> something similar with different year. For example in:
>
several of these repositories are just dead (and will soon be moved and
marked as such once we figure out which ones exactly these are). does it
still make sense to adjust copyrights in these?
---
Laszlo wrote:
** Copyright (C) 2012 Firstname Surname <[email protected]>
** Contact: http://www.qt-project.org/
Is that wrong? What if no one pays someone to work on a change?
Also, perhaps you could make a qtqa checker script for these, run them, and
publish the result so we can see the issues at a centralized place? For
instance, we meant to fix everything in QtSerialPort a while ago, so I am
wondering why it is still on your list. I guess this is a generic issue.
Perhaps there could be a license checker bot, or just directly integrated into
an existing bot like the sanity/doc checker?
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
