* 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.
It turns out that the real (not mocked) implementation of JobTicket creation
is already required now for this planned (mock)Dispatcher setup;
moreover, this real implementation turns out to be almost identical
to the mock implementation written recently -- just nested structure
of prerequiste JobTickets need to be changed into a similar structur
of ExitNodes
-- as an aside: rearrange various tests to be more in-line
with the envisioned architecture of playback and engine
several years ago, it seemed like a good idea to incorporate
the link between nominal time and wall-clock time into a dedicated
anchor point, which also regulates the continued frame planning.
But it turned out that such a design mixes up several concepts
and introduces confusion regarding the meaning of "real time"
- latency can not be reasonably defined for a whole planning chunk
- skipping or sliding due to missed deadlines can not reasonably handled
within such an abstract entity; it must be handled rather at the
level of a playback process
- linking the frame grid generation directly to a planning chunk
undercuts the possible abstraction of a planning pipeline
