scalpel 2.0+ licensing

[ydirson at free.fr]

> Yes, I got approval from Golden and Vico.  When we reviewed the code
> (it was a few years ago), they were the only copyright holders.  I
> didn’t think there is any foremost code in there.  Is there?

Hi Brian,

Well, it was forked from an old foremost version, and the current foremost
version (at least the config-reading part) was still quite similar to the
scalpel 1.60.  Some code forensics would help, like importing in a git tree
foremost 0.69 and the various scalpel versions we can find until 2.0.
"git blame -w -C -C" will be able to help to get an idea of lines that
only changed by reindent (although some more work with code normalization
would be required for more accurate numbers, as the line-wrapping conventions
have been changed).


> 
> 
> 
> > On Aug 7, 2016, at 10:54 AM, ydirson at free.fr wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > I'm currently digging through scalpel and foremost.
> > 
> > While doing so, after noticing some strange things in the sleuthkit
> > tree,
> > I wanted to understand who did what in the various
> > versions, and noticed that when refactoring the 2.0 code for
> > library
> > design, you changed all the GPL-2 copyright notices to Apache-2.0
> > ones.
> > 
> > That sort of change is not a trivial one legally speaking, did you
> > make sure you got approval from all previous copyright holders ?
> >  That
> > should include the authors/contributors to the foremost project.
> > 
> > If you managed to get their approval, it would be good to mention
> > this
> > in the copyright/licensing part of the README, so the thing is made
> > clear once and for all.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Yann
> 
>