Hi Phil, Generated files shouldn't be in Git in the first place, and don't need a license (the source code that is used to generate the files should have one, though).
For "foreign" code, you must state the license of the foreign code (and where you got it from); it should always be OK to prepend the existing code with a header stating the origin and the original license. You must make sure such foreign code is (A)GPL compatible. If your changes to the foreign code are non-trivial, you may additionally want to add (to the header) that your changes are under a different license (such as AGPL). Even for trivial changes, the header should include an indication that you did make changes. I hope this helps! Happy hacking! Christian On 06/10/2018 06:41 PM, Phil Buschmann wrote: > Hi Nils and Christian, > > Thanks a lot for your comments and help with the licensing. As Martin > already wrote, the package.json entry will be changed. The MIT license > is the default entry in the package.json. > > About the header: I'm using a framework which auto-generated some scss > files. However, I changed some of them for design purposes. Am I > generally able/allowed to prepend the header to these files? These > files may contain auto-generated, "foreign" code. > > Thanks in advance. > Best regards, > Phil > > > On 06/10/2018 06:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:55:57 +0200 >> From: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <[email protected]> >> To: Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] license clarification webui >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Yes. I think this is a relict from the scaffolding hello world from angular. >> Will be changed to AGPL. >> >> BR >> >>> On 9. Jun 2018, at 17:36, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Phil and Martin, >>> >>> Prompted by Nils, I just looked at the WebUI code and there are more >>> issues. First of all, it should really be under Affero GPL (after our >>> recent change), and should have been under GPL. I don't recall us >>> discussing the use of any other license, and I assume the "MIT" in the >>> top-level package description is simply an oversight. >>> >>> Moreover, _every_ source file should have a header starting the license >>> (short version), not just the 'package.json'. This is not yet the case >>> in the gnunet-webui.git, so please change that. You should be able to >>> copy the header used in the C source files of gnunet.git. >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> On 06/09/2018 04:59 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote: >>>> Hi Phil and Martin, >>>> >>>> I know license is often an afterthought, but I searched around the repo and >>>> with my experience in packaging software in a project where licenses are >>>> pointed out precisely, I know that 'MIT' is too vague. >>>> Depending on person and project there's a different understanding of 'MIT >>>> License' >>>> and as you do not have a license file in the repository. >>>> >>>> Could you please add a license file ("COPYING" or "LICENSE") to clarify >>>> the kind >>>> of 'MIT' license that is used? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks and happy hacking >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GNUnet-developers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GNUnet-developers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers >> _______________________________________________ >> GNUnet-developers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
