Copyright notation inconsistencies

[merkys]

Many thanks for switching to MIT license for InChI! I believe such change in licensing will benefit everyone.

While looking at what is on InChI GitHub repository, I noticed some licensing notation inconsistencies.

First of all, in the source released as v1.07-beta.3, a lot of source files still bear the old copyright notice:

* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the IUPAC/InChI Trust InChI Licence No.1.0,
* or any later version.

In strict sense individual file copyright notices override the top-level copyright indication. Would it be possible to replace there notices with ones mentioning MIT, or removing them altogether?

Second, in the source released as v1.07-beta.3 there is a file INCHI-1-SRC/LICENCE.pdf with the old InChI license. The existence of such file creates some ambiguity over the true license of the source.

Third, other source releases such as v1.06 now bear the new license statement in LICENSE file. Assuming this does not mean that previous InChI releases are now relicensed, the existence of this file in the earlier releases may as well cause some confusion over the true license of the source.

[JanCBrammer]

@merkys, thanks for the issue! We need to clean this up.

• consistently license source files with MIT (see Parametrize version and file header #2)
• remove obsolete references to previous license (e.g., INCHI-1-SRC/LICENCE.pdf)
• correctly and consistently license legacy releases (v1.03 through v1.06)

[merkys]

Great, thanks for prompt response!

[JanCBrammer]

Third, other source releases such as v1.06 now bear the new license statement in LICENSE file. Assuming this does not mean that previous InChI releases are now relicensed, the existence of this file in the earlier releases may as well cause some confusion over the true license of the source.

@gblanke02, we need to decide if we re-license versions <= v1.06 with MIT or keep the original license.

[gblanke02]

Up to now, any reöicensing of the older versions hss not been dis ussed. I think the decision has to be taken by the trust. I'll ove the discudsion over there. The license is mentioned in the code as well. We have to update the code accordingly. Let"s discuss that in our meeting to avoid that older license version pop again bevause the code has been worked on on our own machines Best wishes Gerd Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet

…

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: "Jan C. Brammer" ***@***.***> Datum: 20.02.24 09:09 (GMT+01:00) An: IUPAC-InChI/InChI ***@***.***> Cc: ***@***.***" ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Betreff: Re: [IUPAC-InChI/InChI] Copyright notation inconsistencies (Issue #8) Third, other source releases such as v1.06 now bear the new license statement in LICENSE file. Assuming this does not mean that previous InChI releases are now relicensed, the existence of this file in the earlier releases may as well cause some confusion over the true license of the source. @gblanke02<https://github.com/gblanke02>, we need to decide if we re-license versions <= v1.06 with MIT or keep the original license. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AT3EDCNBL6B2IPSC4XGI7SDYURK2DAVCNFSM6AAAAABDQSOECWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNJTGY3TGMRSGY>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>