Uh, if the code's keithp's or dstone's or somebody like that, just ask them to fix it. They will likely respond both promptly and positively. --Bart
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12-01-26 09:19 PM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> The author of the code should submit a patch to clarify his rights >>> over the code. The X.Org preferred license can be found here: >>> http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.6/doc/xorg-docs/License.html#id2521948 >> That would be great indeed. >> >>> The role of the COPYING file is to reflect (or summarize) the >>> copyright statements in the source code. Currently it is wrong. If >>> this patch makes it correct, it should be applied. If and when the >>> source code changes, the COPYING file would need to be updated again >>> (business as usual). >> I agree with you, but the patch you sent only reflects the copyright >> statements of a part of dsimple.{c,h}. > So we agree in principle, what other Copyright statements have I missed? > I admit I do not read each source file but I do a grep on "Copyright". > If there are none, then that is the end of it. > > I don't search for missing copyright statements, typos, or for any > comment that could be interpreted as a copyright like "public domain" or > "do what you want". I don't know how to handle these or if they have any > legal significance. > > That's the limit of my understanding :-) >> >> Regards, > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
