Adding License header information to QExtSerialPort

[Friedemann Kleint]

Hi,

we are considering using a modified version of QExtSerialPort in one of our
projects (Qt Creator, http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-creator).

Would it be possible to add license header information or a license file to the
QExtSerialPort code base? - This would make re-use of the code base easier.
If that is not possible, could we redistribute the source code with BSD-
license headers manually added?

Thanks,
Friedemann
--
Friedemann Kleint
Senior Software Engineer - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks

[1+1=2]

I think this is a good news for QextSerialPort. And from the project
home page(http://code.google.com/p/qextserialport/) we can see that
the code already under New BSD License.

But I am not the owner of project, I do not know the administrator's attitude.

Debao

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qextserialport" group.
> To post to this group, send email to qextser...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to qextserialpor...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/qextserialport?hl=en.
>
>

[Brandon Fosdick]

The original code from long long ago was Public Domain, and nominally we still consider it to be PD (which is why the files don't have license headers). The Google Code page shows BSD because there wasn't a PD option when we migrated the project from SF. There was a movement some time ago to relicense the code as BSD but I believe we dropped it for a number of reasons. So, given that the code is public domain, I imagine you can do whatever you want with it, short of changing the license. Although, I have no idea what Qt/Nokia's policies are on such things, and I've heard that some countries don't recognize PD.

With all of that said, I think it's safe to say that we, as a project, would be happy for QESP to be included in Qt Creator and we're willing to help you make that happen.

[Miller, Craig]

Legally, if something is truly in the public domain, anyone can modify it and assert whatever license they want.  For example US govt generated source code follows this model.

If the original code was submitted by an individual, and it wasn't specifically stated that it's in the public domain then the original author still has copyright.  He would then need to release it into the public doman or under a license.

Great to hear it's going int Qt Creator!

[Liam Staskawicz]

Agreed - I'd be happy to help make any changes required to accommodate its inclusion in QtCreator.

Perhaps if Nokia has a preferred license that works for the community as well, we can collectively decide to switch it?  I would defer to Brandon's judgement here, as he's been involved for longer than I have.

Liam

[Friedemann Kleint]

Hi Liam, hi Brandon,

> Perhaps if Nokia has a preferred license that works for the community as
> well, we can collectively decide to switch it? I would defer to Brandon's
> judgement here, as he's been involved for longer than I have.

thank you very much for your constructive help. BSD License would actually be
preferred, I am told by our legal department.

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Dec 12 2010, 7:49 pm, Liam Staskawicz <lst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Agreed - I'd be happy to help make any changes required to accommodate its inclusion in QtCreator.
>
> Perhaps if Nokia has a preferred license that works for the community as well, we can collectively decide to switch it?
> I would defer to Brandon's judgement here, as he's been involved for longer than I have.

I am also considering packaging the software for Debian, but I
couldn't do it yet just because of the license.
I am missing either license headers or a license file, containing the
name of the authors and clearly stating the license, of course.

Regards, and thanks in advance, Lisandro.

[Brandon Fosdick]

On Feb 1, 2011, at 18:14 , Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I am also considering packaging the software for Debian, but I
> couldn't do it yet just because of the license.
> I am missing either license headers or a license file, containing the
> name of the authors and clearly stating the license, of course.

How does Debian normally handle packages that are in the public domain?

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

Public domain is a little bit problematic per-se, you can see [0]. For
example, if any of the authors is from US:

"US law, for instance, makes it essentially impossible to place something in
the public domain via any mechanism other than dying and waiting 75 years (or
whatever it is now)."

The above is taken from [1], wich is linked by [0].

Supossing we don't have any problems about the public domain thing, there's
also the author's info missing. Even if there is no license, there must be an
author.

Please, do not heasitate in writing me again if any doubt arises, as having
this software in Debian would be a great thing for all of us embedded-systems
developers out there :-)

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

[0]
<http://ask.debian.net/questions/4d2d6d2219ce95230c00735d/answers/4d2da73b19ce95704000316c>
[1] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/08/msg00005.html>

--
<Tincho> me cago en el gato, es como la tercera vez que me apreta
backspace mientras tengo apretados ctrl y alt
Visto en #lugfi, irc.freenode.net

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer

http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 10:16:11 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
[snip]

> Please, do not heasitate in writing me again if any doubt arises, as having
> this software in Debian would be a great thing for all of us
> embedded-systems developers out there :-)
>
> Kinds regards, Lisandro.
>
>
> [0]
> <http://ask.debian.net/questions/4d2d6d2219ce95230c00735d/answers/4d2da73b1
> 9ce95704000316c> [1]
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/08/msg00005.html>

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the software can be easily dual-licensed,
even PD and BSD-3. All it requires it's the original author's consent (and
maybe even not that, as it is PD).

Of course, having it dual licensed directly from upstream makes it much easier
than taking the software and re-licensing it by a downstream, as this can be
considered a fork.

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

--
Gabardinas "Windows 95". Se cuelgan solas.

[Jesse Zamora]

Yes it would be wonderful if the project could be licensed and packaged because there are going to be several apps that will want to have a stable version of QextSerialPort that can be installed in various distros without having compile from source. And I'm saying this because I'm in the process of creating a serial port application for KDE4 that will use QextSerialPort....

Jesse L. Zamora

2011/2/2 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perez...@gmail.com>

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 02:31:05 Brandon Fosdick wrote:

So, can we do something for this?

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

--

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer

http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/