License header review

[wwalc]

License info in each file takes around 700B.

700B x 30 days x 5000 hits/day x 10 file requests = 1GB/month

I have 6mbit connection so it doesn't affect me that much, but... imho that's just wasting traffic.

Shouldn't we place only a single license.txt file or at least reduce the amount of comments by placing a short link to  http://www.fckeditor.net/license ?

[fredck]

The copyright must definitely be visible in each file. All the rest is totally optional, but it is important for end users to have ways to clearly identify the license under which the code is distributed when including our code in their software.

Currently, we have the following in the CKEditor prototype branch:

/*
 * CKEditor - The text editor for Internet - http://ckeditor.com
 * Copyright (C) 2003-2008 Frederico Caldeira Knabben
 *
 * == BEGIN LICENSE ==
 *
 * Licensed under the terms of any of the following licenses at your
 * choice:
 *
 *  - GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL")
 *    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
 *
 *  - GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL")
 *    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
 *
 *  - Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 or later (the "MPL")
 *    http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
 *
 * == END LICENSE ==
 */

What about a radical change to the following?

/*
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Frederico Caldeira Knabben. All rights reserved.
For licensing, see LICENSE.html or http://ckeditor.com/license
*/

[fredck]

Ok... that's the final version for it:

/*
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, CKSource - Frederico Knabben. All rights reserved.
For licensing, see LICENSE.html or http://ckeditor.com/license
*/

[fredck]

Fixed with [2922] and [2923].

[mosipov]

This is a very good approach. Should I adapt the same heading for FCKeditor.Java 2.5 and up?

[fredck]

Replying to mosipov:

This is a very good approach. Should I adapt the same heading for FCKeditor.Java 2.5 and up?

We'll have it in the CKEditor integration for Java.