[License-discuss] Fwd: Yet another question about using libraries with different licensed in OSS

[Massimo Zaniboni]

On 18/01/2017 21:30, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>> GPL and Apache License require explicitely to put an header file in each
>> source code file with:
>
> AFAIK, neither GPL nor Apache license actually _require_ this. You may
> have missed the "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" markers when reading the
> corresponding web pages.

1) I'm consulting https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

"You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating 
that You changed the files;"

This seems to suggest to add something like

   Copyright 2017 me at example.net

to the header of a source code file.

In APPENDIX: HOW TO APPLY THE APACHE LICENSE TO YOUR WORK 
[https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply] there is the 
boilerplate notice, and also if the text is not 100% clear, it seems 
that it must be added to every source code file.

2) In https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html it says explicitely

"How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
[..]
attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them 
to the start of each source file to most effectively state the exclusion 
of warranty; and each file should have at least the “copyright” line and 
a pointer to where the full notice is found.
"

and then there is the usual boilerplate.

So for Apache and GPL the suggested way is attaching the usual 
boilerplate header to every source code file. I'm not a lawyer but at 
this point I suspect that the usual/suggested way is the same also for 
BSD. Also because a file is a strong container of source code, and so it 
is 100% clear who are the authors, and which license is applied to the 
code.

Regards,
Massimo






>
>> - the AUTHORS (but not who made typos/small bug-fixes)
>
> Yes, and a committee of lawyers that determine whether a given
> contribution warrants adding its author to the source code file(s) plus
> a dedicated group of developers that have nothing better to do but move
> author lines from one source file to another when the code is
> reshuffled. And an Oracle that remembers who wrote what and removes no
> longer valid author entries as the code gets deleted. Oh, and do not
> forget a small group of assistants that change all those duplicated
> author emails when author employer changes (while following up with the
> old employer for a permission to change competitorA.com emails to
> competitorB.com emails in sources).</sarcasm>
>
>
>> - a short version of the license terms
>
> There is no "short version" of GPL or Apache terms. What folks often put
> in source code files is a reference to a document that contains the
> actual license(s). It is up to each project to determine the exact text
> of that reference, keeping various official recommendations (i.e., the
> stuff _after_ TERMS AND CONDITIONS) and the number of applicable
> licenses in mind.
>
> Alex.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>

-- 
Massimo Zaniboni
https://www.asterisell.com

web application for showing, and billing VoIP calls.