Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:17:23AM -0500, Aaron Spike wrote:
I'm a chronic code copier, I know. But I just realized that I have made a few mistakes moving code around in our codebase. I moved PointToCurvilignPosition from libnrtext/Layout-TNG-OutIter.cpp to livarot/Path.cpp as was indicated in the orignial comment, "this function really belongs to Path. I'll probably move it there eventually, hence the Path-esque coding style." In doing this I forgot to copy the original copyright in the code. But much worse, I just realised that the files that I moved this code between are under different licenses. I moved a GPLed function into a PD file. This cannot happen. The possibility for other accidents in our codebase seems huge. I don't think PD and GPL can coexist well in a codebase that desires so much refactoring. Can we and should we place the PD files under the GPL?
This seems like a logical approach. I don't know of a particular reason why PD would be preferred for inkscape code. Perhaps putting those PD files under LGPL+GPL would address any possible needs for future use in being linked with non-GPL'd code.
This would work OK, I think. You can do just about anything you want with PD stuff. But you would need to have an explanation that says something like "this particular copy that we obtained as PD, we refactor and release as GPL." This would avoid implying that all instances of this PD code anywhere are now GPL, which of course is impossible and invalid.
bob