about discarding the htmlArea license

[ray]

To make the transition complete

[wymsy]

I just converted the remaining plugins in changeset:856. The only remaining references to HTMLArea are in comments, generally relating to the HTMLArea license or copyrights.

I think Xinha has been developed far enough beyond HTMLArea that it can be considered a derivative work. We should come up with a 'Xinha license' (which can include the HTMLArea license terms) to finish the job. Anyone know a lawyer who could help?

[wymsy]

Here's a first cut at a Xinha license, basically just a few edits on the HTMLArea/BSD license.

Xinha License (based on BSD license)
Copyright (c) 2005-2007 xinha.org
Copyright (c) 2002-2004 interactivetools.com, inc.
Copyright (c) 2003-2004 dynarch.com
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
   and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3) Neither the names of the copyright owners nor the names of their
   contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
   software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

The only real issue I can see (I'm not a lawyer) is, what is the proper description of the Xinha copyright owner? xinha.org doesn't really exist except as a domain name. Should it be "Xinha developers" or something along those lines? Opinions/suggestions welcome.

[ray]

Firefox: © 1998-2006 Contributors Eclipse: (c) Copyright Eclipse contributors and others 2000, 2007

gogo introduced "The Xinha Core Developer Team" for the parts of the main code base that were put into separate files/plugins.

I like the latter

[wymsy]

How about simplifying that to "The Xinha Developer Team" to be more inclusive? There are quite a few plugins that were contributed by developers who haven't worked on the core.

[ray]

rev [905]: I now put the following lines in XinhaCore?.js and the about popup

    --  Copyright (c) 2005-2007 Xinha Developer Team and contributors
    --  
    --  Xinha was originally based on work by Mihai Bazon which is:
    --      Copyright (c) 2003-2004 dynarch.com.
    --      Copyright (c) 2002-2003 interactivetools.com, inc.
    --      This copyright notice MUST stay intact for use.

[ray]

As the namespace transition now is mainly done, I change the topic name

[ray]

I'd like to bring this into discussion again

[nicholasbs]

A coworker who used to work at the FSF says that we'll need to leave the old license is place, but we can still add the Xinha license. They are of course effectively the same licenses, with the only difference being that the names are changed.

Also, for clarity and to make it immediately obvious to newcomers what license we're using, I updated the frontpage to explicitly state that we're using a modified BSD license.

[gogo]

Too hard basket probably.