Comment 2 for bug 1341589

I have addressed almost all of the issues as highlighted in this bug. There's one more repo update needed but I don't have permission (I'll organise to get it done).

Changes:
- the correct LICENSE file is in place for each juju sub repository mentioned in the bug
- all the source file headers have been updated (or added) to refer to the LGPLv3 licence for each repo mentioned

Since trunk has diverged from 1.20 for several of the sub repos, I branched and updated both the 1.20 and trunk branches of each.

Todo (by me) - update the juju-core dependencies.tsv file to ensure the latest source code revision containing the updated licence information is reflected in the dependencies list. This is trivial and can be done at the end once everything else is fixed.

>
> src/code.google.com/p/go.net/html/charset/testdata/
> has no included license permitting redistribution. It appears to have
> come from the
> referenced W3C URL, which appears licensed under the W3C documentation
> license that prohibits modification, contrary to DFSG.
>
> src/github.com/binary132/gojsonschema/json_schema_test_suite
> has unknown copyright holder and no license for redistribution.
>

I have not done these; excluding these files will not affect the passing of the juju-core test suite.

> src/launchpad.net/gnuflag:
> no LICENSE file as referenced from source code.
>

I don't have commit access to update this branch. I'll poke Roger to do it.

> src/launchpad.net/godeps:
> no license for redistribution (and no copyright statement).
>

We don't distribute godeps so nothing to do AFAIK.

> src/launchpad.net/gomaasapi:
> not all files have a license statement that
> apply to them (and no general licensing statement that clearly applies
> to all files).
>

Done. Although the only file I saw without a copyright header was the Makefile. Do we need one for that?

> src/launchpad.net/goyaml:
> not clear on this. LICENSE.libyaml appears to
> have no corresponding source files. Is this redundant now? What
> copyright statement, licensing and mandatory statements apply to each
> file?
>

No changes made by me. I think Gustavo has clarified the issue?

> src/github.com/juju/errgo:
> no license for redistribution.
>

Done.

> src/github.com/juju/errors:
> LICENSE says LGPL-3; some files have a copyright statement and state
> GPL-3, others have no statement at all.
>

Done.

> src/github.com/juju/names:
> LICENSE says LGPL-3 with exception, files say AGPL-3
>

Done.

> src/github.com/juju/schema:
> LICENSE says LGPL-3 with exception, files say AGPL-3

Done.

>
> src/github.com/juju/testing:
> LICENSE says LGPL-3 with exception, some files say AGPL-3 but refer to
> LICENSE (others say LGPL-3)
>

Done.

> src/github.com/juju/utils:
> ICENSE says LGPL-3 with exception, some files say AGPL-3 but refer to
> LICENSE (others say LGPL-3)
>

Done.

> src/github.com/juju/juju: very big; not yet checked.
>
>

From what I can see, only 2 source files have an incorrect header. I'll fix at the same time when updating the dependencies file.