How am I supposed to be sure I agree with licenses and loan assistants?
I have been working on a java sim game for a while and am finally ready to open it up online and let other developers help me. (Using Google Code)
There are several parts to this question. First, I used the pathfinding code from the cokeandcode site (which you may or may not know). I contacted the author and he said he is using a BSD license. I've edited some of the code, but I'm happy my edits remain in BSD.
I was planning on using an MIT license (however I can change this to BSD). I've seen in other google code projects that the license appears at the top of every code file. Is this necessary or is it okay to just include it in the wiki?
Secondly, I had help from different people from here (THANKS! :) and I want to give them help if needed. I thought using the SO username and linking to the questions url would make sense. Thoughts?
source to share
I was planning on using an MIT license (however I can change this to BSD). I've seen in other google code projects that the license appears at the top of every code file. Is this necessary or is it okay to just include it in the wiki ??
According to the MIT License page on Wikipedia, the license terms contain:
[...] The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. [...]
This should answer your question. But if possible, I think it would be a good idea to carefully read the terms of the license you choose, you may find useful information in them :)
Secondly, I had help from different people from here (THANKS! :) and I want to give them help if needed. I thought using the SO username and linking to the questions url would make sense. Thoughts?
To my knowledge, there is no provision in the MIT license prohibiting the use of contributor names. This is one of the main differences from the BSD license, in which the names of contributors cannot be used without their explicit permission. This provides protection for contributors in the event that the product is associated with a poorly written program.
Any other comments or suggestions are appreciated.
Well, the MIT license is probably the simplest license. So there is nothing to say.
source to share
It is entirely appropriate to lend to users who have contributed as it is done with their understanding. In some cases, you may need their permission. At some point, you can distinguish between active and previous members. Sometimes an individual will need to check with their employer so that it might take a while or open a can of worms (but that's not your problem).
Source files must have an associated license file in the header. This is a good practice because it is very clear if you have multiple licenses governing all the code in the ZIP file. It's easy to move files around and not think about the license that applies if you put all the GPL code in the / gpl directory, but don't put that license in every source file. In addition, the license will not be known if the developer sends a file to a colleague from his personal code collection.
As far as auditing code goes, it would be nice to see a copy of any messages with external developers on the wiki or in the source tree. This would be kindly provided by other developers. You must edit the developer's personal information such as email address.
source to share