38

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any ...


6

Licence compatibility arises when works, say A and B, under two different licences, say N and P respectively, are combined to form a new work C. Because C is a derivative work of A it must honour any conditions N applies to derivative works, and because it is also a derivative of B it must honour any conditions P applies to derivatives. If it possible to ...


4

These terms looks very much like GitHub's terms of service; compare with their section d, subsection 5: Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your ...


3

Using a trademark to refer to that brand itself is generally fine. Using a trademark as part of your name is not. Your project shouldn't mislead users in thinking that your plugin would belong to or be part of the real brand, or would otherwise be official. For example, this would be fine and your name can't be confused with the trademark: Flooblargh – a ...


3

Here's my advice to you as a low-level developer who wants the company to contribute more to OSS: you need to influence by example. Because you have no opportunity to discuss community policy in a way that you would be listened to, you need to focus narrowly on the specific things you want to do and request permission for just those things. For example, ...


2

Legal? Who knows? If you work for a place that has an open-source compliance lawyer, ask them. Still: open source licenses often suggest what to do with existing copyright notices. For example, the MIT license says, emphasis mine. Copyright year copyright holder Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this ...


1

Regardless of whether it's legal (it should be, but ask a lawyer), as a maintainer I find it inappropriate. For software that has a single primary author and many contributors of small patches, an appropriate copyright notice looks like: Copyright ©2019 [author's name], et. al. for et alia, literally "and others". For a work with multiple major authors (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible