-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Determine project license #99
Comments
Yes, we should determine a license. For now:
|
Ok |
@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. 😄 |
Need:
|
|
|
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.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: