Re: [MiNT] GEMlib license?

[Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi>]

Hi,

Thanks for the prompt reply!

On torstai 15 marraskuu 2012, Arnaud BERCEGEAY wrote:
> I haven't checked every files of gemlib, but I think gemlib is public
> domain.

Could some file (e.g. "COPYRIGHT", "LICENSE" or "README") be added to
the sources which explains the legal status of the library and maybe
also some background for its source (like who wrote it)?

Best would be to have a short copyright statement in every code file,
but even single file stating the status would better.


> Maybe some Makefiles used to build gemlib are not in public domain
> because they come from mintlib ? i haven't checked.
> 
> For cvs2cl.pl, it's not really part of gemlib source (it's not required
> to build gemlib). It's more a tool to manage the cvs of freemint and
> generate the ChangeLog from the freemint cvs. BTW, the ChangeLog file
> (which was managed by hand before cvs2pl) is part of the gemlib package.
> There are other tools used to build gemlib (for example: Doxygen), but
> cvs2pl is the only one stored in the cvs.
> 
> To make things clear, maybe cvs2pl should be removed from the
> gemlib-source package (but be kept as this in cvs). and then gemlib
> package may be declared as public domain.

As code from these don't get built into the library, I don't see
them as a problem.


	- Eero

> 2012/11/14 Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi>
> > I looked at the GEMlib sources:
> > http://sparemint.atariforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/lib/gemlib/
> > 
> > But nothing in its sources had proper copyright or license information.
> > 
> > (Only cvs2cl.pl was GPL and gemlib.spec.in mentioned Public domain)
> > 
> > So, under what license GEMlib binaries can be used and distributed?
> > 
> > 
> > The reason why I ask about this is that VBCC m68k maintainer
> > was interested to include it with VBCC.