jonassmedegaard
commented
7 years ago thanks for improving the info.
It is still quite vague, however: It now states that the license is "the GNU license" - but the Free Software Foundation has written several GNU licenses, so which one(s) is it?
I guess it is the GNU General Pulbic License version 3 (that is the license included in the file COPYING). But is it only that version, or also newer versions?
I recommend to read the last part of the COPYING file - the part that starts with "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"
I also created a separate issue #94 about code deriving from different author(s) needing their copyright and licensing info.
Hi,
This project contains a COPYING file containing the GNU GPL v3, and README.md mentions that the project is "GPL licensed".
Makes sense to include a COPYING file for referencing general licensing terms (to save space in file headers), and makes sense to summarize in README.md the effective license resulting from compiling the source parts together, but neither of those accurately reflect licensing, especially when code is merged from multiple origins with different copyright holders and licensing terms.
In particular, httpserver. are copyright iTV.cn, and tssegment. are likely copyright someone else (and their copyright and licensing needs to be restored).
Please clarify the licensing of at least those files mentioned explicitly above, and consider generally adding both copyrigh and licensing header to each substantial code file.