Hi Andreas. I had interpreted that the header information was satisfying the requirement to identify changes for 5. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Since I am under version control and date is in $Id$, I was just going to indicate a statement "Modified ZPL 2.1(5) code" under my $Id$ then use my own header with reference to the LICENSE.txt Would you say this is a reasonable way to go? Many thanks. Regards, David Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 8. August 2006 00:53:09 -0300 David Pratt <fairwinds@eastlink.ca> wrote:
Hi. I am trying to get a better sense of how others are dealing with ZPL headers in code from original authors once changes are made. For example if a package is ZPL copyright somebody, I typically see a header at the top of most files as well as the LICENSE.txt in the package itself. When changes are made however, it is typical see headers replaced with the header of the author(s) who have made changes and date. A second license will now apply to the modified package with the ZPL license of the original code left to acknowledge authors and copyright of the original product/package. Is that a fair assessment? Is that generally acceptable? Many thanks.
The ZPL does not tell what to put into header of your files. My source basically contains a reference to some LICENSE file in the root directoy. This file contains the main license (e.g. ZPL) but it also mentions all code parts that are published under a different license. So you have everything in one place and you don't have to modify all headers as soon as something changes with your licenses.
-aj