Research License options

[sam-hunt]

This is the licence header I've been using in my source files:

/**********************************************************
 *    Copyright (C) Project Nest NZ (2016)
 *    Unauthorised copying of this file, via any medium is 
 *        strictly prohibited.
 *    Proprietary and confidential
 *    Written by Sam Hunt <s2112201@ipc.ac.nz>, August 2016
 **********************************************************/

[FrancisG-Massey]

The mobile app is licensed under the GPL, and is required to since it uses some GPL libraries. Not that it makes much difference to me (even if it wasn't required to be released under an open source license, I'd still do it because there's no way it would ever be release commercially anyways).

Since the three components are disconnected enough that they aren't strictly part of the "same" application, there's no reason why each component can't be released under it's own license.

[sam-hunt]

My dependencies include: Google GSON 2.6.2 (Apache licence v2.0) PostgreSQL 9.4.109 sql driver (PostgreSQL Licence) JDK 1.8 (Oracle Binary Code Licence?) Apache Tomcat 8.0.27.0 (on test) (Apache licence v2.0) Apache Tomcat 7.0.52 (on prod) (Apache licence v2.0) a BCrypt JAR (self-licenced in-file)

They're all pretty lax as far as licences go (basically, include this text, we aren't liable, feel free to use/modify for free), so I don't think there's any legal requirement to licence my source under any particular licence which is nice.

[ZoeUdy]

So I'm thinking GPL?

[sam-hunt]

@ZoeUdy @FrancisG-Massey Are we required to use a generic one? Also I've heard there's significant differences between GPL v2 and v3. So you may want to look into which the app use etc.

[FrancisG-Massey]

The app uses GPLv3 (or any later version)