Technically also copyright 2017 John Salter / White Rose / Leeds (whatever your contract says about owning output) for your new stuff?  I think it might need a conversation with BL about their original license that you are building on, or Southampton’s LGPL 3…  one or other or both of those probably says any deriviatives have to be under the same or more permissive license?  I haven’t checked recently though!  There may well be some conflict between the two.

 

Alan

 

 

Hi,

Bit of a non-techie question - but one that is in our domain.

 

I'm making some updates to the UKETD_DC (UK eTheses and Dissertations) export plugin:

https://github.com/eprints/eprints/blob/3.3/perl_lib/EPrints/Plugin/Export/OAI_UKETD_DC.pm

 

The changes will be issued as a Pull Request on the 3.3 branch, and I will also be making them into a Bazaar package.

 

The file already contains some copyright information from the British Library (who were involved with creating the initial export format):

https://github.com/eprints/eprints/blob/3.3/perl_lib/EPrints/Plugin/Export/OAI_UKETD_DC.pm#L9-L29

-in summary:

    Copyright (C) British Library Board, St. Pancras, UK

    GNU General Public License v2 (or later)

 

At the end of the file (https://github.com/eprints/eprints/blob/3.3/perl_lib/EPrints/Plugin/Export/OAI_UKETD_DC.pm#L369-L394)

it also has the 'standard' EPrints statements:

    Copyright 2000-2011 University of Southampton.

    GNU Lesser General Public License - v3 or later.

 

I was going to leave all these statements in as-is, and not add any of my own - but ten I wondered if this was actually a 'correct' thing to do - or whether I should be adding any additional information?

 

Obviously it'll still be GNU Lesser General Public License v3 or later, but what about the two copyright statements? Do they already conflict?

Any thoughts?

 

Cheers,

John