zeitgeist
zeitgeist copied to clipboard
zeitgeistpm
Add missing license files
The citation of Acala got gobbled up during a merge. Also, I discovered some code in node/ that came from Polkadot (ExecuteWithClient).
Hmm... While in this particular case this might fit well, I wonder if this is actually a good pattern:
Copyright 2017-2020 Parity Technologies (UK) Ltd.
Modifications Copyright 2021-2022 Zeitgeist PM LLC.
For example, if I use one function from another project and add it to a 2000 line file (most of which is my work), then it will look like most of the file is no longer ours. I would opt for this, instead (sorted by date):
Copyright 2021-2022 Zeitgeist PM LLC.
Copyright 2017-2020 Parity Technologies (UK) Ltd.
Regarding the list of changes... This seems to pan into tedious extra work (when moving or renaming the file, for example), so I'll argue against it. ;) On adding the changelog, the GPL-3.0-or-later states in Section 5a (the one cited in the stackexchange post that you linked):
The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
IANAL, but doesn't adding our copyright notice satisfy that condition? There's no mention of a list of changes, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, I'd say that the answer you're quoting errs so far on the side of caution that it actually creates new problems. For example, it states (regarding missing copyright notices, as in the case of the code from Balancer Labs)
If program(s) is missing a copyright of the original author, I should add a copyright statement. If program(s) is missing a GPL notice, I should add a GPL notice: for this I can use the provided examples.
This is the exact thing that I was warned against in a more recent post (https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12941/citing-project-with-license-but-without-copyright-notice?noredirect=1#comment33516_12941):
You probably should not modify or add their copyright notice. If you make a mistake, there could be legal implications.
I'm not viscerally opposed to having this one line in the file, I just wonder if we're really doing ourselves a favor.
In regards to the example we discuss about, do you think adding
Copyright 2021-2022 Zeitgeist PM LLC. Copyright 2017-2020 Parity Technologies (UK) Ltd.
is sufficient, i.e. can we remove their license header since it reflects the same license?
Sorry, I thought I had answered your question already. You correct, we can remove the duplicate of the GPL-3.0-or-later license.