Re: [Zope] Question of ZPL etiquette

2006-08-08 Thread David Pratt
Hi Andreas. I had interpreted that the header information was satisfying 
the requirement to identify changes for


5. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry 
prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any 
change.


Since I am under version control and date is in $Id$, I was just going 
to indicate a statement "Modified ZPL 2.1(5) code" under my $Id$ then 
use my own header with reference to the LICENSE.txt Would you say this 
is a reasonable way to go? Many thanks.


Regards,
David

Andreas Jung wrote:



--On 8. August 2006 00:53:09 -0300 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



Hi. I am trying to get a better sense of how others are dealing with ZPL
headers in code from original authors once changes are made. For example
if a package is ZPL copyright somebody, I typically see a header at the
top of most files as well as the LICENSE.txt in the package itself. When
changes are made however, it is typical see headers replaced with the
header of the author(s) who have made changes and date. A second license
will now apply to the modified package with the ZPL license of the
original code left to acknowledge authors and copyright of the original
product/package. Is that a fair assessment? Is that generally acceptable?
Many thanks.



The ZPL does not  tell what to put into header of your files. My source 
basically contains a reference to some LICENSE file in the root directoy.
This file contains the main license (e.g. ZPL) but it also mentions all 
code parts that are published under a different license. So you have 
everything in one place and you don't have to modify all headers as soon 
as something changes with your licenses.


-aj

___
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )


Re: [Zope] Question of ZPL etiquette

2006-08-07 Thread Andreas Jung



--On 8. August 2006 00:53:09 -0300 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



Hi. I am trying to get a better sense of how others are dealing with ZPL
headers in code from original authors once changes are made. For example
if a package is ZPL copyright somebody, I typically see a header at the
top of most files as well as the LICENSE.txt in the package itself. When
changes are made however, it is typical see headers replaced with the
header of the author(s) who have made changes and date. A second license
will now apply to the modified package with the ZPL license of the
original code left to acknowledge authors and copyright of the original
product/package. Is that a fair assessment? Is that generally acceptable?
Many thanks.



The ZPL does not  tell what to put into header of your files. My source 
basically contains a reference to some LICENSE file in the root directoy.
This file contains the main license (e.g. ZPL) but it also mentions all 
code parts that are published under a different license. So you have 
everything in one place and you don't have to modify all headers as soon as 
something changes with your licenses.


-aj

pgpS6u9fUxG0X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )


[Zope] Question of ZPL etiquette

2006-08-07 Thread David Pratt
Hi. I am trying to get a better sense of how others are dealing with ZPL 
headers in code from original authors once changes are made. For example 
if a package is ZPL copyright somebody, I typically see a header at the 
top of most files as well as the LICENSE.txt in the package itself. When 
changes are made however, it is typical see headers replaced with the 
header of the author(s) who have made changes and date. A second license 
will now apply to the modified package with the ZPL license of the 
original code left to acknowledge authors and copyright of the original 
product/package. Is that a fair assessment? Is that generally 
acceptable? Many thanks.


Regards,
David
___
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )