some copyright and license statements are missing

Hi, While creating the copyright file for debian packagin

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:08:56 +0000

Hi, While creating the copyright file for debian packaging, I found that horde miss some info. According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html : <<< Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two elements to **each** source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as Copyright 1999 Terry Jones), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL). >>> this is not the case This probably also apply to other apps.

Attached is some files without copyright notice. Some are th

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:11:48 +0000

Attached is some files without copyright notice. Some are third-party tools (./services/editor/*, scriptaculous) and some are not. I can give some help if needed

- we should not add copyrights to third-party tools - we sh

Thu, 01 May 2008 21:06:07 +0000

- we should not add copyrights to third-party tools - we shouldn't add copyrights to the compressed javascript files - I'm not sure about putting them in SQL scripts - I don't think we should put copyright notices in .htaccess files - definitely shouldn't be any notices in favicon.ico files (those are graphics) - the themed_graphics files are empty placeholders, they don't need copyright - I'm not sure about the help.xml and .po files - I'm against putting copyright notices into every template file A patch for everything else would be great, along with thoughts on these - thanks.

Attached an updated version. Ordered by sections. I can

Sat, 03 May 2008 10:52:57 +0000

Attached an updated version. Ordered by sections. I can provide a patch. But I need information (which sections, whose copyright ?) Also note that (c) doesn't have any legal value. ''Copyright'' or © should be used. TOC: * PHP FILES: copyright is probably needed * JAVASCRIPT: copyright is probably needed * PHP/CSS THEME FILES: copyright is probably needed * VARIOUS SCRIPTS: copyright is probably needed * SQL: ? * CONFIG: copyright is probably not needed * DOC: copyright is probably not needed * L10N (po): copyright is probably needed * L10N (XML): ? * TEMPLATES: ? * HTACCESS: no copyright needed Other files have strange copyright (missing copyright holder, year, ...): ./po/uk_UA.po:# Copyright (C) ./po/km_KH.po:# Copyright (C) YEAR Horde Project ./po/fi_FI.po:# Copyright (C) ./po/horde.pot:# Copyright (C) YEAR Horde Project ./po/pt_BR.po:# Copyright (C) YEAR Horde Project. ./po/ru_RU.po:# Copyright (C) Also, all "Copyright (C) AAAA Horde Project" should probably replaced by "Copyright AAAA The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/)" (this is cosmetic)

Attached patch for the cosmetic stuff. Applicable to the hor

Sat, 03 May 2008 11:46:34 +0000

Attached patch for the cosmetic stuff. Applicable to the horde module.

From Michael Slusarz: This has been on my mind for awhile

Sun, 04 May 2008 04:11:23 +0000

From Michael Slusarz: This has been on my mind for awhile and thought I'd get it out there - for the various 3rd party apps we distribute along with our code (right now, all I can think of is xinha, fckeditor, tinymce, scriptaculous, and prototype), we should probably have a wiki page tracking their licenses. For those under the GPL/LGPL/MPL (fckeditor), I don't believe we are distributing the full source distribution so we should probably be keeping a local copy of the base distribution in case anyone ever asks us for the source code. I think xinha is BSD so we just need to have the license in the distribution). scriptaculous is MIT-like, so we just need to make sure we distribute scriptaculous.js with all apps using it (we do this). prototype is MIT-like but doesn't require copyright notices so technically, with the above changes, we don't need to do anything.

There's also lib/Horde/MIME/Viewer/ooo/* which is LGPL2.1 or

Sun, 04 May 2008 16:14:47 +0000

http://horde.org/horde/docs/?f=CODING_STANDARDS.html#header-

Mon, 05 May 2008 04:33:45 +0000

http://horde.org/horde/docs/?f=CODING_STANDARDS.html#header-comment-blocks describes the formatting. Copyrights should be to The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/)

Any updated patch coming?

Fri, 23 May 2008 19:21:21 +0000

Any updated patch coming?

horde.diff was fine and it has been applied: http://lists.h

Fri, 23 May 2008 19:25:17 +0000

horde.diff was fine and it has been applied: http://lists.horde.org/archives/cvs/Week-of-Mon-20080519/078782.html

Hi, I can't provide a patch, I don't know who owns copyri

Sat, 24 May 2008 16:35:53 +0000

Hi, I can't provide a patch, I don't know who owns copyright.

> Copyrights should be to The Horde Project (http://www.hord

Sat, 24 May 2008 18:38:49 +0000

> Copyrights should be to The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/) excepting external code of course.

Meanwhile, it's Horde LLC. Suse legal team had some revie

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 07:21:08 +0000

Meanwhile, it's Horde LLC. Suse legal team had some review of horde 4 package licenses and copyrights, a lot of issues have been raised on the mailing list and after that there have been a lot of fixes. I think we can close this now.