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; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Jts-topo-suite-user mailing list Jts-topo-suite-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jts-topo-suite-user
