On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 07:52, zyx <z...@gmx.us> wrote: > I suggest to use a standard form of the copyright notices, thus any > existing tools can help to aid any discrepancies in this regard. The > SPDX notes are similarly short and easy to decipher. The above would > look like: > > /* > * SPDX-FileCopyrightText: (C) 2007 Dominik Seichter <....> > * SPDX-FileCopyrightText: (C) 2020 Francesco Pretto <....> > * SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-or-later > */ > > (note of removed "by" and no '/**' at the beginning - it's because > '/**' can be understood as a documentation comment for tools generating > developer documentation, where these license comments really do not > belong to). >
Very good suggestion. My intention was of course having shorter, more maintainable headers: this SPDX format seems a better solution, we should adopt it instead. > Also, when it comes to it, the sources can be dual-licensed. There are > large/well-known projects doing that. > Yes, projects can be dual licensed and some notable ones do it but that is usually required in the case of mutually incompatible licenses. For example cairo is dual licensed in LGPL 2.1 + MPL 1.1 because MPL 1.1 is incompatible with LGPL. If you pick a more permissive license which is compatible with LGPL you don't have such issue and the dual licensing may be redundant (MPL2 for example is LGPL compatible). Of course dual licensing could help in case a more permissive license somehow is found to be incompatible with a future version of LGPL but that's something quite hard to even imagine. These comments belong more to the re-licensing thread, let's try to stick to that thread for licensing related discussions. Cheers, Francesco _______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
