OpenNETCF.org Shared Source License missing

Question

OpenNETCF.org Shared Source License missing

mans0954 opened this issue 7 years ago · comments

Christopher Hoskin commented 7 years ago

The headers of code in the OpenCF directory all include the lines:

//		This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under 
//		the terms of the OpenNETCF.org Shared Source License.
...
//		You should have received a copy of the OpenNETCF.org Shared Source License 
//		along with this library; if not, email licensing@opennetcf.org to request a copy.

As far as I can see, the text of the OpenNETCF.org Shared Source License isn't included in flickr-net, but it seems reasonable to suppose that including the text of the licence with any redistribution will be one of the conditions of the license.

The domain opennetcf.org appears to no longer be registered, so it is not clear to me how I could obtain the text of the license. If the upstream project no longer exists, perhaps this code should be removed?

Thanks.

Christopher Hoskin

Sam Judson · Answer 1 · Tue Apr 04 2017 16:34:07 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

According to this page (https://opennetcf.codeplex.com/license) it's just the MIT license.

I only use this code in the legacy .Net compact framework stuff anyway, which is technically no longer supported.

Christopher Hoskin · Answer 2 · Sat Apr 08 2017 16:12:25 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks. A few other licensing questions:

FlickrNet/MD5Core.cs and FlickrNet/MD5Managed.cs are copyright Microsoft Corporation, but don't appear to include any licensing information. Do you know what the original source of these files was and what licence Microsoft distributed them under?

FlickrNetTest/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs sets the copyright for the FlickrNetTest assembly to "BT 2009". Who or what is BT (British Telecom?) Does this copyright apply to all of the FlickrNetTest/ directory, and what is the license?

FlickrNet/FlickrNet.ndoc contains a CopyrightText "Released under Common Public License 1.0". Is this intentional, or is it left over from before FlickrNet was Apache 2.0 / LGPL 2.1 relicensed?

Sandcastle/Flickr Net Sandcastle File.shfbproj and Support/Flickr Net Sandcastle File.shfb contain references to GPL 2.0. Is this intentional or should this be LGPL 2.1?

Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic. I'm investigating whether it's feasible to update the libflickrnet Debian package, which requires documenting the copyright and licensing of each file.

Thanks.

Sam Judson · Answer 3 · Tue Apr 11 2017 17:23:58 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

MDS5Core.cs - I'm not sure about this. I can find this same file included all over the place but nothing on where I got it from. Again, I think this might only be used by the Compact Framework code.

BT is probably British Telecom - I used to work for them but why I would have put that in the AssemblyInfo.cs I have no idea. It is not associated with that company at all, and never has been.

The ndoc stuff was probably an attempt to release to contents of the help file under a creative commons license - not the code itself.

Sandcastle - no, that should be LGPL. The library has never been under the GPL.

Hope that helps. I'll try and fix those.

Sam