I am missing some clearer license statement in xcb-util tarball and source files. Four or five of the .c files, from ~15, have some sort of BSD license in header, but dozen of them does not.
In Red Hat BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427 there's ongoing package review for awesome v2, but I wish to update it to v3, which triggers xcb-util.
I feel it will be problem at time of package review of xcb-util (as a new dep for awesome) in case the license is not clear enough.
(Cc-ing Julien -- awesome maintainer/creator and publisher of xcb-0.2.1)
I already put this subject on the table in March, but no further action had been taken at that time.
In the mean time, I got my fdo account and XCB repository access so I might review my patches and apply (some of) them.
In v3 it is still a problem. Now it blocked my package review:
Created attachment 20480 [details] [review]
adds copyright statements and licenses to .c files which need them
made using 'git diff'
Attached please find a patch for this bug. I'm planning to use xcb in a project of mine, and I'd like to contribute something back to xcb. Below are some notes clarifying how the patch was made.
As stated in the original bug report, some files contain license blocks and some don't. Of those that contain the license blocks, the licenses appear to be equivalent. Hence the only problem is figuring out who the authors are for those files without copyright statements. The determination of authorship was made using 'git blame' against a clone of the current master.
The license body was taken from the file iccm/icccm.c. There is no particular reason for this except that iccm.c was first on the list of files I looked at. Licenses were only added to files with extension .c, as it appears these are the only files of concern. Any existing license on a file was left alone (except possibly for the copyright character as described below), and the list of authors was not modified on any file which already had a copyright statement.
Note that reply_formats.c originally had only a license "stub" with no body-- it referred to a non-existent COPYING file. The reference to the COPYING file was replaced with the actual license body, and the list of authors was taken from the original copyright stub. That is, the copyright statement was unchanged.
The phrase "Copyright (C|c)" was manually replaced with "Copyright ©", even on files with existing copyright statements and licenses. I believed at the time the appearance of the special symbol actually mattered, but looking back now I think actually it does not. For the case of US law, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/401.html. In any case the change doesn't hurt anything, and it brings the files into closer uniformity, as some already had the proper copyright character.
on Jan 16, 2017 at 14:56:40.
(provided by the Example extension).