It's truth, the truth hurts.
Sad part is that I don't really know any more what's really best to honour the licences and contributors and whatnot. It's clear that they don't know what the right thing is and wouldn't if it bit them on the plumbers crack. Thing is, that announcement affects us too...
* @name ElkArte Forum
* @copyright ElkArte Forum contributors
* @license BSD http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
*
* This software is a derived product, based on:
*
* Simple Machines Forum (SMF)
* copyright: 2011 Simple Machines (http://www.simplemachines.org)
* license: BSD, See included LICENSE.TXT for terms and conditions.
You're based on 2.1 code, yes? That would imply you needing to update to indicate so :/
As much as I don't entirely feel it's right, we dropped the dual header aspect, so each file (including ones that have absolutely no originating-from-SMF code in it) has:
* @package wedge
* @copyright 2010-2013 Wedgeward, wedge.org
* @license http://wedge.org/license/
block in it, the license is a placeholder page until we figure out what actual licence we want (likely MPL2.0 unless we go paid, it's something we've talked a lot about doing), and there's a contributors file which lists all the things we've included and under what licence terms, in which we have:
And our credits page really goes to town on it:
QuoteUses portions from SMF 2.0, copyright © Simple Machines 2011, all rights reserved. SMF is covered by the BSD license, and developed by [Unknown], Aaron, Antechinus, Bloc, Compuart, Grudge, JayBachatero, Nao 尚, Norv, Orstio, regularexpression, [SiNaN], TE, Thantos and winrules.
That's all the people who were in the dev team credits in 2.0 which AFAIK covers everything up to 2.0. We explicitly do not list the 2.0 credit in every page, because I don't want to mislead people into thinking the licence is not what it is, if that makes sense.
I don't know that it's technically correct but at least we're trying. I'm sharing in the hopes that it encourages SMF to do the right thing. Foolish, I know, but it's illustrating the different ways to try and do the right thing.
FWIW, I can see their logic - warped as it is - in the credits: people who were in the credits for 1.1.x but not present in 2.1 development... should they be in the 2.1 credits? To them it seems perfectly logical that they should not be because they're not actively on the dev team at present. It's wrong but it does make some warped kind of sense.
Arantor still finds it amusing that he has code in 2.0.x but is merely on the Customizers list because that's the highest position he attained in the team in his time on it.
(Also: bug: this is in the quick reply, if I preview, I go to the full post screen with my preview but nothing in the post box!)