Andy wrote:
>
> AFAICT this is compatible with the terms of [M/N/G]PL... all it requires
> is we state somewhere in the file
> "portions of this code are descended from sample code which is Copyright
> © 1984-1999 by Apple Computer".
> Effectively we list them as a contributor.
Looks compatible to me, too.
> Some have suggested a CVS comment would be enough.
> Personally I'd think the best approach would be to state a 1 line
> comment at the top of each function
> derived from Apple code, just to make everything crystal clear.
I don't think a CVS comment is sufficient, it needs to be something that
travels with the source.
Unless the entire file is basically the Apple sample file a comment above
each derived function is probably a good idea, in addition to the
contributor comment at the top of the file.
As a developer I'd be interested in being able to track derived code back to
its source. Perhaps the comment could specify which sample code its derived
from, although that doesn't appear to be a legal requirement.
-Dan Veditz
