* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
reason is, only files with a @file comment will be processed
with further documentation commands. For this reason, our Doxygen
documentation is lacking a lot of entries.
HOWTO:
find src -type f \( -name '*.cpp' -or -name '*.hpp' \) -not -exec egrep -q '\*.+@file' {} \; -print -exec sed -i -r -e'\_\*/_,$ { 1,+0 a\
\
\
/** @file §§§\
** TODO §§§\
*/
}' {} \;
...but the whole design looks still overengineered. See #388
- should get rid of the explicit specialisation
- always use a function signature and thus have arguments?
- why inheriting from the wrapper?
still puzzled why this instantiation of MultiFact fails to compile with GCC 4.8
so I'm bound to understand why the types involved
need indeed to be are structured the way they are right now.
the rules-based configuration and query system
will be located within the core application,
while the concrete implementation facilities
are expected to reside within the session or
maybe also the GUI.
This is kind of a 'rochade' refactoring to resolve
circular library dependencies and confine the parts
dependant on the session and MObjects to the Proc-Layer
And while we're in the middle of chainsaw surgery,
we'll concentrate further query-based facilities
alongside the config-rules within the App core.
2012-11-27 02:17:21 +01:00
Renamed from src/lib/query-resolver.cpp (Browse further)
