Conversation
As discussed in previous meetings, I'm proposing we add an Apache 2.0 licence to all repositories under CGUC. This gives us the benefit of being able to keep everything open-source, but protects the "patent right" and "copyright right" of our original development team.
AngelaKrone
requested review from
CharlotteBaker316,
Erik-Mohr,
aopal,
asilverswan,
mipollex,
neilbrub,
picklechips and
scholvat
| same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier | ||
| identification within third-party archives. | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to replace the [] info here? That's the vibe I got from 'the following boilerplate' in the paragraph above, but not sure if this is just an example in that same appendix..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would seem this is just being referenced by the following paragraph:
"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
(an example is provided in the Appendix below).
So we might just need to include the Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] somewhere in the repo? Not entirely sure though.
|
@AngelaKrone Any chance we could wrap up this PR and get the changes Neil requested in? Just trying to clean up around here :) |
6 participants
As discussed in previous meetings, I'm proposing we add an Apache 2.0 licence to all repositories under CGUC.
This gives us the benefit of being able to keep everything open-source, but protects the "patent right" and "copyright right" of our original development team.
Doing mobile first since the most people have contributed to this :) Opening up the PR for discussion while I work on still adding other things (such as the CLA and definition of the team) but don't merge until we have approval from all 9 members :)