[gst-devel] Review of licensed files
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
uraeus at linuxrising.org
Mon Jul 25 09:12:02 CEST 2005
Great to see you do this, we always want to improve our routines to make
sure we keep our licensing path clean. I think the easiest way forward
is audit the 0.9 branch and make sure that it clean as new plugins gets
added to it.
Regarding GPL stuff it seems the only thing of importance is the Jack
plugin and I think Wingo plans on rewriting that anyway, so we can clean
up the licensing of that as part of that.
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:24 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I started investigating all files in the various GStreamer CVS modules
> and tarballs, and it seems that a lot of files are missing a license
> header (a small percentage of all files, but there are many files in
> Since there were far too many files for me to process manually, I
> started a Perl script which excludes some file name patterns first, and
> then searches for known licenses blocks. I'm attaching the script,
> invoke as "check_license gst-plugins/**/*".
> A sample result against gst-plugins 0.8 CVS is at:
> (I filtered out LGPL, BSD, PUBLIC DOMAIN, and skipped files to show
> files I think are relevant.)
> I'd like to resolve with you:
> - file without any license header, especially .c and .h files,
> - file with strange licenses, or licenses seemingly incompatible with
> the LGPL of GStreamer's distribution license -- this includes some
> GPL files.
> I'm open for the rest of the categories, I tried splitting files in
> "upstream" and "GStreamer" when the files were visibly written by the
> GStreamer project, but not all files without license are triaged (the
> non-triaged are "NOT FOUND"). I also tried classifying things you
> might not want to license explicitely, such as .mak, .m4 etc.
> Let me know how I can ease the reviewing process, and help fixing this
> (should I provide big patches?).
More information about the gstreamer-devel