Some recherche regarding the requirements and conditions of the GPL
made it clear that we are obliged to have at least an summary statement
of all authors and the years of their contributions embedded somewhere
in the source itself. The Git history alone is not sufficient to fulfil
this requirement, since a code base could be packaged as Tarball
and passed-on outside of any Git repository.
Thus I propose the following policy
- add yourself to the copyright header whenever you made
some ''significant'' contribution to a code file
- maintain a list of relevant authors at top-level,
indicating a time range of their contribution
- use the same information also in the debian/copyright (DEB package)
- clarify in the LICENSE that authorship can be extracted from Git
__Remark__: Anton Yakovlev made a single code contribution in 2009 (87e528bd),
which was never used anywhere and removed as part of a general clean-up in 2023.
Thus I do not list him as a code author, but he is mentioned in credits.txt
* 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.
The Fixture and the low-level model backbone deserve a distinct namespace on their own.
Since it's built by the Builder from the Session contents, and also used by the frame dispatch,
we can expect dependence on some types from Steam-Layer, and thus this namespace
needs to reside in Steam-Layer rather, while the actual low-level Model
might become part of Vault-Layer, creating a hierarchy of data structures.
(Remark: likely also the session related namespaces will need a reorganisation)
- most notably the NOBUG logging flags have been renamed now
- but for the configuration, I'll stick to "GUI" for now,
since "Stage" would be bewildering for an occasional user
- in a similar vein, most documentation continues to refer to the GUI
