Re: Inconsistent inclusion of license info in headers

[rsteinke w-link net]

> From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
>
> rsteinke w-link net writes:
>
> > Poking through the gtk+ headers, I noticed that while most have
> > the obligatory license language at the top, many do not. Is
> > this due to a change in policy at some point in the development
> > history? The files in question are:
>
> There has been no policy change. Generally, I'd say our policy is:
>
>  - autogenerated headers should not have copyright headers
>  - non-autogenerated headers should have copyright headrese

Okay. After cutting out autogenerated headers and foointl.h, we get:

> > gdk:
> > 
> > gdkcolor.h
> > gdkcursor.h
> > gdkdnd.h
> > gdkdrawable.h
> > gdkenumtypes.h
> > gdkevents.h
> > gdkfont.h
> > gdkgc.h
> > gdkimage.h
> > gdkinput.h
> > gdkpixbuf.h
> > gdkpixmap.h
> > gdkproperty.h
> > gdkregion.h
> > gdkselection.h
> > gdkvisual.h
> > gdkwindow.h
>
> > win32/xcursors.h
> > linux-fb/gdkfb.h
>
> > linux-fb/mi.h
> > linux-fb/mitypes.h
>  
> > gdk-pixbuf:
> > 
> > gdk-pixbuf-features.h
> > gdk-pixbuf-i18n.h

hordes of gdk headers missing copyright information,
and:

> > gtk:
> > 
> > gtktextbtree.h
> > gtktextiterprivate.h
> > gtktextmarkprivate.h
> > gtktextsegment.h
> > gtktexttag.h
> > gtktexttagprivate.h
> > gtktexttagtable.h
> > gtktexttypes.h
>
> Care is needed for gtktext* ... if the contents of the header
> is derived from Tk code, then they should get the Tk copyright
> information (see the C files)
>
> > xembed.h
>
> This one shouldn't be LGPL; probably easiest just to 
> copy the header from gdk/x11/xsettings-client.h - down to the 
> Red Hat, 2001.

some headers in gtk which need special license consideration.

I'm guessing that the gdk headers just never got license info.
Are they all LGPL, or do some need different licenses? In particular,
what about gdkregion.h, which has the interfaces for gdkfoo-generic.*,
which is code under the open group license? Authorship? Dates?

Ron Steinke