Closed steveatinfincia closed 9 years ago
I see you're copyrighting this. Does that prevent FPI from accepting or distributing it? I don't know how that stuff works.
@Thynix The opposite actually, in the U.S. the original code was automatically copyrighted too it just lacked a statement from me about it (and my old github account name 404s). I'm not sure how licensing plays out in that case even here (code that has no copyright statement but includes a license), but particularly in jurisdictions where copyrights have to be explicit, or where there is no concept of "public domain", etc. Grey areas all around.
Anyway, FPI and others are now on much more solid ground distributing it with an explicit copyright, contact info & the license terms together. That's the norm for open source contributions, the alternative is a written copyright assignment to FPI (FSF and several others do things that way). Those are the only ways to go to be on the safe side, and I wasn't sure how contributions were being handled nowadays. I'd be happy to assign copyright to FPI :)
Okay. We do not currently have the infrastructure to handle contributor agreements, so doing it this way is fine by me. Thanks for explaining! Would there be benefits to assigning copyright to FPI instead?
GPLv2+ to GPLv2-only license change commit has been cleanly reverted, re-added proper copyright notices including RichyRich
I've looked over the rest and other than my questions above this looks good to me. Anyone else have comments?
RE: OSX versions to support, I tested >= 10.7.0 for API usage in the tray app with static analysis, but it looks like Oracle's Java 7 requires x86-64 and 10.7.3, so that sets a minimum for us anyway.
In another month when 10.11 is likely to be announced, 10.7 will be pretty far back to support but I don't see anything wrong with it aside from Apple discontinuing security patches for it.
Alright. Looks like no one else has remaining feedback on this.
Thank you!