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
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.
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 8. August 2006 00:53:09 -0300 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
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.
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -