License header - Revision history

Dan Polansky: /* Examples from other FOSS projects */

2026-05-15T09:33:14Z

Examples from other FOSS projects

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 </pre>
 Notes: The authors are not stated on a per-file basis; they can be seen from the commit history. See also https://api.libreoffice.org/share/readme/LICENSE.html. A similar header (not stating individual contributors) was seen in other files[https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/blob/master/basic/source/runtime/iosys.cxx][https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/blob/master/dbaccess/source/core/dataaccess/ComponentDefinition.cxx].
 == Option: do not list individual contributors ==

Dan Polansky at 08:22, 15 May 2026

2026-05-15T08:22:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:22, 15 May 2026
Line 125:		Line 125:

	== Links ==		== Links ==
			* [https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.pdf Managing copyright information within a free software project], 12 Sep 2012, softwarefreedom.org
	* [https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects Copyright Notices in Open Source Software Projects] by Steve Winslow, 10 Jan 2020, linuxfoundation.org		* [https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects Copyright Notices in Open Source Software Projects] by Steve Winslow, 10 Jan 2020, linuxfoundation.org

	[[Category:Development]]		[[Category:Development]]

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T08:08:20Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 15 May 2026
Line 122:		Line 122:
	* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.		* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.

	A good terminology for the above should be clarified. Perhaps the former would be a ''direct FreeMind contributor'' while the latter would be an ''indirect FreeMind contributor''. But this terminological choice does not match ~~Peterson~~ 2020. And it would seem doubtful to think that e.g. the authors of Batik (a component used by FreeMind for SVG export) are ''indirect FreeMind contributors''. Perhaps the latter could be called ''quasi-contributor'', using the alienating prefix ''quasi-''.		A good terminology for the above should be clarified. Perhaps the former would be a ''direct FreeMind contributor'' while the latter would be an ''indirect FreeMind contributor''. But this terminological choice does not match Winslow 2020. And it would seem doubtful to think that e.g. the authors of Batik (a component used by FreeMind for SVG export) are ''indirect FreeMind contributors''. Perhaps the latter could be called ''quasi-contributor'', using the alienating prefix ''quasi-''.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Dan Polansky at 08:07, 15 May 2026

2026-05-15T08:07:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:07, 15 May 2026
Line 125:		Line 125:

	== Links ==		== Links ==
	* https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects		* [https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects Copyright Notices in Open Source Software Projects] by Steve Winslow, 10 Jan 2020, linuxfoundation.org

	[[Category:Development]]		[[Category:Development]]

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T07:42:28Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 15 May 2026
Line 122:		Line 122:
	* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.		* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.

	A good terminology for the above should be clarified. Perhaps the former would be a ''direct FreeMind contributor'' while the latter would be an ''indirect FreeMind contributor''. But this terminological choice does not match Peterson 2020.		A good terminology for the above should be clarified. Perhaps the former would be a ''direct FreeMind contributor'' while the latter would be an ''indirect FreeMind contributor''. But this terminological choice does not match Peterson 2020. And it would seem doubtful to think that e.g. the authors of Batik (a component used by FreeMind for SVG export) are ''indirect FreeMind contributors''. Perhaps the latter could be called ''quasi-contributor'', using the alienating prefix ''quasi-''.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T07:41:12Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:41, 15 May 2026
Line 121:		Line 121:
	Who is ''not'' a ''FreeMind contributor'' in a narrow sense yet his work is directly used by FreeMind?		Who is ''not'' a ''FreeMind contributor'' in a narrow sense yet his work is directly used by FreeMind?
	* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.		* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.

			A good terminology for the above should be clarified. Perhaps the former would be a ''direct FreeMind contributor'' while the latter would be an ''indirect FreeMind contributor''. But this terminological choice does not match Peterson 2020.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T07:37:24Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 15 May 2026
Line 119:		Line 119:
	* Someone who has contributed code or other assets via email, a patch tracker or other similar means.		* Someone who has contributed code or other assets via email, a patch tracker or other similar means.

	Who is ''not'' a ''FreeMind contributor''?		Who is ''not'' a ''FreeMind contributor'' in a narrow sense yet his work is directly used by FreeMind?
	* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.		* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T07:37:03Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 15 May 2026
Line 114:		Line 114:
	Similar view/position is taken by [https://opensource.com/article/20/10/copyright-notices-open-source-software Peterson 2020], where Scott K Peterson "is a member of the Red Hat legal team". Peterson emphasizes the importance of ''license notice'', while the ''copyright notice'' he holds to be relatively unimportant.		Similar view/position is taken by [https://opensource.com/article/20/10/copyright-notices-open-source-software Peterson 2020], where Scott K Peterson "is a member of the Red Hat legal team". Peterson emphasizes the importance of ''license notice'', while the ''copyright notice'' he holds to be relatively unimportant.

	~~The~~ the above approach were taken, the FreeMind copyright notices could often state "Copyright The FreeMind contributors" and be done with it; but not always, for instance when FreeMind incorporated the code for the splash screen from Gantt project (since arguably, the author of the Gantt project did not contribute that code to FreeMind, but rather, FreeMind took that code from Gantt project, as it could given the license. However, since the most significant contributors up to a FreeMind version are often known, stating them, followed by "and others", could be preferable; and thus, it would state "Copyright Joerg Mueller, Daniel Polansky, Christian Foltin, Dimitry Polivaev and others". A disadvantage of this approach is that should a new very significant contributor appear, all copyright notices would have to be ~~updates~~, in all files, or else the contributor would be added only to the files impacted by him, but that would be going back to manually maintained fine-grained contributor lists on a per-file basis.		If the above approach were taken, the FreeMind copyright notices could often state "Copyright The FreeMind contributors" and be done with it; but not always, for instance when FreeMind incorporated the code for the splash screen from Gantt project (since arguably, the author of the Gantt project did not contribute that code to FreeMind, but rather, FreeMind took that code from Gantt project, as it could given the license). However, since the most significant contributors up to a FreeMind version are often known, stating them, followed by "and others", could be preferable; and thus, it would state "Copyright Joerg Mueller, Daniel Polansky, Christian Foltin, Dimitry Polivaev and others". A disadvantage of this approach is that should a new very significant contributor appear, all copyright notices would have to be updated, in all .java files, or else the contributor would be added only to the files impacted by him, but that would be going back to manually maintained fine-grained contributor lists on a per-file basis.

			Who is a ''FreeMind contributor''?
			* Someone who has contributed code or other assets via email, a patch tracker or other similar means.

			Who is ''not'' a ''FreeMind contributor''?
			* Someone whose code or other assets (e.g. images) were taken into FreeMind as they could given the license but did not contact the FreeMind project in any way or did not indicate in any way that he is contributing something to FreeMind.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Dan Polansky at 07:33, 15 May 2026

2026-05-15T07:33:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 15 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			The author of this page is Dan Polansky, bar any changes in the revision history that could appear later.

	What follows includes reports on current license header practice in FreeMind as well as design considerations on how things could be done in future and what principles to apply. In support of the latter, practice in other free/open-source (FOSS) projects is considered.		What follows includes reports on current license header practice in FreeMind as well as design considerations on how things could be done in future and what principles to apply. In support of the latter, practice in other free/open-source (FOSS) projects is considered.


	== FreeMind license header ==		== FreeMind license header ==

Dan Polansky: /* Option: do not list individual contributors */

2026-05-15T07:32:53Z

Option: do not list individual contributors

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:32, 15 May 2026
Line 110:		Line 110:

	Similar view/position is taken by [https://opensource.com/article/20/10/copyright-notices-open-source-software Peterson 2020], where Scott K Peterson "is a member of the Red Hat legal team". Peterson emphasizes the importance of ''license notice'', while the ''copyright notice'' he holds to be relatively unimportant.		Similar view/position is taken by [https://opensource.com/article/20/10/copyright-notices-open-source-software Peterson 2020], where Scott K Peterson "is a member of the Red Hat legal team". Peterson emphasizes the importance of ''license notice'', while the ''copyright notice'' he holds to be relatively unimportant.

			The the above approach were taken, the FreeMind copyright notices could often state "Copyright The FreeMind contributors" and be done with it; but not always, for instance when FreeMind incorporated the code for the splash screen from Gantt project (since arguably, the author of the Gantt project did not contribute that code to FreeMind, but rather, FreeMind took that code from Gantt project, as it could given the license. However, since the most significant contributors up to a FreeMind version are often known, stating them, followed by "and others", could be preferable; and thus, it would state "Copyright Joerg Mueller, Daniel Polansky, Christian Foltin, Dimitry Polivaev and others". A disadvantage of this approach is that should a new very significant contributor appear, all copyright notices would have to be updates, in all files, or else the contributor would be added only to the files impacted by him, but that would be going back to manually maintained fine-grained contributor lists on a per-file basis.

	== Links ==		== Links ==