license header question

[Jonathan Sturges]

I've been meaning to contribute a new Geode target I created some months ago but never got around to sending in. My target is based on another Geode GX1 target (Eaglelion 5BCM).  Since this target's source was already missing the required license headers, do I go ahead and add the headers to the new target's files, or submit without?  It seems unlikely the patch would be accepted without license headers, yet I can't vouch for the origin of the Eaglelion source files, so it would seem presumptuous of me to put a GPL license header in my target's files.  What's the recommended way to handle this situation?

thanks,
Jonathan

[Peter Stuge]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:00:39PM -0800, Jonathan Sturges wrote:
> It seems unlikely the patch would be accepted without license
> headers, yet I can't vouch for the origin of the Eaglelion source
> files, so it would seem presumptuous of me to put a GPL license
> header in my target's files.
> What's the recommended way to handle this situation?

Ideally we would like to have correct headers for all files, so if
you want to help investigate the origin (repo logs etc) of the files
you used that would be great.

Another possibility is that the files in question are trivial enough
to not actually need license headers? (Though I think we want them
anyway to err on the side of caution.)

//Peter

[Hamish Guthrie]

I was the guilty party who created the Eaglelion stuff (quite a long 
time ago), and at that point we were all pretty lax about license headers.

thanks,

Hamish Guthrie

Jonathan Sturges wrote:
> I've been meaning to contribute a new Geode target I created some months ago but never got around to sending in. My target is based on another Geode GX1 target (Eaglelion 5BCM).  Since this target's source was already missing the required license headers, do I go ahead and add the headers to the new target's files, or submit without?  It seems unlikely the patch would be accepted without license headers, yet I can't vouch for the origin of the Eaglelion source files, so it would seem presumptuous of me to put a GPL license header in my target's files.  What's the recommended way to handle this situation?
>
> thanks,
> Jonathan

[ron minnich]

On Feb 18, 2008 12:00 AM, Hamish Guthrie  wrote:
> I was the guilty party who created the Eaglelion stuff (quite a long
> time ago), and at that point we were all pretty lax about license headers.

That's for sure. We followed the conventions of the time, wherein a
README at the top was deemed sufficient. This was before SCO started
their legal mischief, and turned us all into quasi-lawyers.

The Good Old Days ...

ron