Correct attribution

[xtendo-org]

No description provided.

[simnalamburt]

Oh I forgot to ask the license of emblem.svg. Can you specify the license of your emblem? If it is proprietary (all right reserved), maybe I should separate the emblem.svg from the repository.

Since your emblem is uploaded to gh-pages branch of this project, the emblem is likely to be distributed with the source code via git. Which means, users are highly likely to consider your work as part of cgitc project, hence users are highly likely to consider license of your work as (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) license, which is not desirable. Or I must specify cgitc project's license as (Apache-2.0 OR MIT WITH some exception) just like the old Firefox, which makes copyright notice longer and more complicated, which also is not desirable.

If you're going to license your emblem.svg under a license which is compatible with (Apache-2.0 OR MIT), I'll properly add your copyright notice to COPYRIGHT file and you'll be a copyright holder of the part of cgitc project.

But if you're going to license your work under a license which is not compatible with (Apache-2.0 OR MIT), I must remove 47dc872c from the tree and host emblem.svg in somewhere.

I'm not a lawyer and this judgment is based on multiple events which occurred in FOSS community. If you have any other comments, please tell me.

[xtendo-org]

I hereby release the cgitc emblem under the terms of the AGPL version 3 or later, the Apache License version 2 or later, the MIT license, the 2-Clause BSD License, the zlib/libpng License, and a proprietary license in which the sellers of a t-shirt with the cgitc emblem printed on it must share fifty percent of their revenue to me. A user or a redistributor of the cgitc emblem may choose the best license that suits their demand.

[simnalamburt]

Acknowledged, I'll keep emblem.svg in the tree. I'll merge this later since I have to update COPYRIGHT file too.