garglk lacking copyright notices/license

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Currently the only copyright notice for garglk is "The Gargoyle Glk library
is copyright 2008 Tor Andersson" in License.txt; other than the GLK headers
and imgscale.c the source code files don't have any notices.

Is it intended that these are available for redistribution (e.g. OS
packages)? If so it would be useful if notices and license could be added
please. (There's a similar issue with MuPDF/Fitz).

Thanks very much.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by s...@spacehopper.org on 3 Jun 2009 at 12:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Tor's website indicates that the Gargoyle source code (on which this project is
based) is released under the GPL.  So that's evidently the intent.

What specific change would you propose?  I can amend License.txt to indicate 
the GPL
status of the Gargoyle GLK library.

I'm reluctant to modify the individual source files with GPL notices; many are
partially (and in some cases fully) derived from Andrew Plotkin's CheapGLK
implementation, which is not GPL but is covered by an unnamed BSD-style 
license.  I
don't know that putting a single license notice at the top is correct or 
allowed,
even if the code as a whole is uniformly free software.

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 5 Jun 2009 at 3:49

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: OpSys-All

[GoogleCodeExporter]

GPL notice added in r188.

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 5 Jun 2009 at 4:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

First I should make it clear, IANAL, just an OS packager who deals with this 
sort of
thing sometimes. :)

Changing License.txt is definitely a good start as it gives something in the 
release
documenting the intention (more reliable than a separate mention on a website). 

Looking at Andrew Plotkin's license from cheapglk-090.tar.gz:

<< The source code in this package is copyright 1998-2000 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify
this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain
a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the
URL shown above. >>

So in any event a reference to Andrew's license and URL needs to be added to
License.txt to cover his terms.

If a source code file is based on Andrew's code his copyright and license must 
be
retained (unless he's willing to dual-license that code). If significant 
changes have
been made to a file, an additional copyright notice can be added, and a separate
license provided the terms of the two licenses are compatible (the problem area 
is if
one license says you must do, or must not do, something, and the other license 
has
terms which mean this cannot be done). I'm no GPL expert to say for sure, it 
does
look to me like these two licenses probably are compatible. If in doubt those 
files
should keep the original license.

Sorry if this seems nitpicking but some of the smaller OS projects have to be 
fairly
careful about what they distribute as packages and I'd quite like to be able to 
turn
on binary packages for garglk in OpenBSD :)

Original comment by s...@spacehopper.org on 5 Jun 2009 at 4:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2009 at 11:11

• Added labels: Build, Component-Licenses

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for the detailed response.  I'll get Andrew's license into the Licenses
directory and update the documentation accordingly.  I'll also see about 
updating
each of the source code files with a notice.

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2009 at 11:31

• Added labels: Milestone-20090625

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2009 at 11:31

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Copyright and license notices added to all source files maintained by the 
project in
r252.

Original comment by bcressey@gmail.com on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:28

• Changed state: Fixed