Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
A bigger problem is there's no copyright holder or licence for this framework, anyone know how to find those? Jonathan ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
On 30/01/14 18:34, Jonathan Riddell wrote: A bigger problem is there's no copyright holder or licence for this framework, anyone know how to find those? Which framework? Do you mean kapidox? All the Python files should have copyright headers at the top, and the LICENSE file says it is BSD-licensed (although, as per this thread, I think this should become a section in the README.md). Alex ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
On 22/01/14 17:46, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:27:29PM +, Alex Merry wrote:
I would be tempted to ditch the current LICENSE files (all three of
them), and add (summary) license info to README.md, as
The COPYING{.LIB,.DOC} files can't go away as there must be a full
copy of the licence text included with any code under that licence.
Else it's too easy to claim you weren't sure what the full licence
was. Many distributions would have trouble distributing it without
the full copy of the licences.
I absolutely agree that COPYING (GPL) and COPYING.LIB (LGPL) (and I
guess COPYING.DOC is the GNU fdl text?) files have to stay. I even said
as much in part of the email that you didn't quote :-)
The LICENSE files are in repos that don't have a GNU license, but are
instead BSD. They essentially say this code is BSD or whatever, and
include a copy of the license text that already is (or should be) at the
top of the relevant files.
Likewise, the COPYING-CMAKE-FILES contains text that is supposed to be
at the top of the relevant cmake files (the BSD license text doesn't
make sense without the attached copyright notices).
Alex
___
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
On 22/01/14 06:33, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Tuesday 21 January 2014 17:18:36 Alex Merry wrote: Traditionally, the front pages of our apidox has included a list of authors, the maintainer(s) and the license. This is obviously duplicating/summarising information stored elsewhere, and is easy to let get out of date. Yes... definitely easy to get wrong. We should have only one place for that. Do we still want this information? It would probably mean adding it to the README.md files. Are we ditching the LICENSE and AUTHORS files which used to contain this type of information? I'm not sure we want everything in README.md. Well, this is kind of what I mean about duplicating the information. Although the canonical authorship info is the copyright headers and/or git log. My personal view is that authors generally shouldn't be in the apidox main page anyway, as it's not massively useful to users of the dox. Authors on individual classes is more useful and more likely to be accurate. Having the maintain there is a possibility, or we could just add a link to the frameworks list with the canonical info to the Links section. License is potentially useful. Currently the docs do @licenses @lgpl which gives something approximating the markdown ### License(s): [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) This is somewhat more succinct than the content of LICENSE tends to be (where that file is even given; we currently don't bother with it if the code is GPL or LGPL; in that case, we have COPYING or COPYING.LIB, containing the full text of the license, instead). I would be tempted to ditch the current LICENSE files (all three of them), and add (summary) license info to README.md, as ## License This framework is licensed under the [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) or ## License This framework is licensed under the @lgpl (the latter depends on a doxygen command defined by kapidox). We would (have to) keep COPYING and COPYING.LIB regardless. We might want to add in a second sentence saying that the CMake code is licensed as BSD. Currently there are a bunch of COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS files around where frameworks ship Find*.cmake modules, which I'm not so keen on (especially as the BSD license text makes little sense unless it has a copyright notice above it). Alex ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
Hello, On Wednesday 22 January 2014 12:27:29 Alex Merry wrote: On 22/01/14 06:33, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Tuesday 21 January 2014 17:18:36 Alex Merry wrote: Traditionally, the front pages of our apidox has included a list of authors, the maintainer(s) and the license. This is obviously duplicating/summarising information stored elsewhere, and is easy to let get out of date. Yes... definitely easy to get wrong. We should have only one place for that. Do we still want this information? It would probably mean adding it to the README.md files. Are we ditching the LICENSE and AUTHORS files which used to contain this type of information? I'm not sure we want everything in README.md. Well, this is kind of what I mean about duplicating the information. Although the canonical authorship info is the copyright headers and/or git log. My personal view is that authors generally shouldn't be in the apidox main page anyway, as it's not massively useful to users of the dox. Agreed. Authors on individual classes is more useful and more likely to be accurate. Not sure I agree there... the amount of class level author info we had in kdelibs which was outdated look large to me. Having the maintain there is a possibility, or we could just add a link to the frameworks list with the canonical info to the Links section. We have indeed to choose which one will be canonical: the wiki page or some bit in the repository. I don't mind either way, depends what maintainers prefer to edit really. License is potentially useful. Currently the docs do @licenses @lgpl which gives something approximating the markdown ### License(s): [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) This is somewhat more succinct than the content of LICENSE tends to be (where that file is even given; we currently don't bother with it if the code is GPL or LGPL; in that case, we have COPYING or COPYING.LIB, containing the full text of the license, instead). I would be tempted to ditch the current LICENSE files (all three of them), and add (summary) license info to README.md, as ## License This framework is licensed under the [LGPLv2](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC1) or ## License This framework is licensed under the @lgpl (the latter depends on a doxygen command defined by kapidox). We would (have to) keep COPYING and COPYING.LIB regardless. We might want to add in a second sentence saying that the CMake code is licensed as BSD. I like that. Currently there are a bunch of COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS files around where frameworks ship Find*.cmake modules, which I'm not so keen on (especially as the BSD license text makes little sense unless it has a copyright notice above it). Agreed. Cheers. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Authors, maintainers and licenses in apidox
On Tuesday 21 January 2014 17:18:36 Alex Merry wrote: Traditionally, the front pages of our apidox has included a list of authors, the maintainer(s) and the license. This is obviously duplicating/summarising information stored elsewhere, and is easy to let get out of date. Yes... definitely easy to get wrong. We should have only one place for that. Do we still want this information? It would probably mean adding it to the README.md files. Are we ditching the LICENSE and AUTHORS files which used to contain this type of information? I'm not sure we want everything in README.md. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
