Closed PeterBowman closed 6 years ago
Yes, we should determine a license. For now:
share
.Ok LGPL v2.1
?
@smorante agrees with LPGL v2.1, what changes need to be done?
Let me drop this here regarding copyright notices on top of each source file:
http://lu.is/blog/2012/03/17/on-the-importance-of-per-file-license-information/
+1 to adding copyright notices (license, author(s) or at least something ASROB) on top of each source file.
Not sure if it's stated in the article, but the fact is many times it's noobs who don't worry about licenses they're unaware about, and just copy and paste files. Adding 1-2 header lines can increase traceability of where and how our files are being used, which is definitely a plus.
I've just found this article which favours GPL over LGPL licenses:
GNU are a bit (legitimately) biased towards GPL. :smile: LGPL has the benefit of not scaring off potential industry partners, while still encouraging them to improve whatever set of core libraries we provide.
Need:
* Authors: See https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation/blob/master/AUTHORS.md
* CopyPolicy: Released under the terms of the LGPLv2.1, see https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation/blob/master/LICENSE
* Authors: See AUTHORS.md at project root.
* CopyPolicy: Released under the terms of the LGPLv2.1, see LICENSE at project root.
* URL: https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation
See also How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries at:
https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/7213ccf/_licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt#L494-L538
Resolved at #117.
Strangely enough, we actually forgot to update the LICENSE file itself. Done at 99f5d02 (and I've just forgotten to [skip ci], yay!).
No problem LOL!
Root
LICENSE
is a BSD-3-clause. Exported CMake configs andmain.cpp
files atsrc/programs/
state that this is LGPL v2.1. Several CMake list files prefer GLP v2.0.