Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification
Ximin Luo wrote:
> On 21/11/11 23:21, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Files: *
>> Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc
>> License: GPL-2+
>>
>> License: GPL-2
>> etc
[...]
>> Files: *
>> Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc
>> License: GPL-2 with Font exception
>>
>> License: GPL-2
>> etc
[...]
> Correct, and that's the symptom that I first came across, but I think all of
> the symptoms that I described in the latter half of my last email, are part of
> the same design problem.
Right. My small brain copes better with only one primary use case at a
time, though.
In the examples above, a natural approach might be to make the
standalone license paragraphs more modular somehow. For example:
Files: *
Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc
License: GPL-2+
License: GPL-2
etc
License: GPL-3
etc
The "or later" licenses are particularly problematic because it is not
clear which version the reader is going to choose, and so it is not
clear which set of license terms is actually relevant. The best way
to deal with "or later" terms is not obvious to me.
License exceptions are easier.
Files: *
Copyright: yyyy-yyyy etc
License: GPL-2 with Font exception
License: GPL-2
etc
License-Exception: Font
etc
I would be glad to see a change to allow such a syntax (modulo
wording), especially if targeted at copyright-format 1.1.
Another problem involves licenses that require preserving the list of
copyright holders. Is the list of copyright holders part of the
license?
Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
[...]
Common practice in debian/copyright files I have seen is to say, "no",
so the "License: BSD-3-clause" paragraph begins with "Redistribution
and use" and the copyright notice it mentions is in the Copyright:
line of each Files stanza.
That sounds fine, but it does not work as well for programs licensed
under the MPL, which involves some notices other than the list of
copyright holders.
* The Original Code is mozilla.org code.
*
* The Initial Developer of the Original Code is
* Netscape Communications Corporation.
* Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998
* the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved.
*
* Contributor(s):
* Original Author: David W. Hyatt (hyatt@netscape.com)
* Gagan Saksena <gagan@netscape.com>
* Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin@smedbergs.us>
I believe something like the following would be ok, according to the
current copyright-format.
Files: *
Copyright: 1998 Netscape Communications Corporation
Comment:
The Original Code is mozilla.org code.
.
The Initial Developer of the Original Code is
Netscape Communications Corporation.
Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998
the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved.
.
Contributor(s):
Original Author: David W. Hyatt (hyatt@netscape.com)
Gagan Saksena <gagan@netscape.com>
Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin@smedbergs.us>
License: MPL-1.1 or GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+
License: MPL-1.1
1. Definitions.
etc
License: GPL-2+
etc
License: LGPL-2.1+
etc
The "Comment" could even be dropped, as far as I can tell. A person
interested in the list of Contributors can look at the source, and the
license does not seem to require reproducing this list when
distributing binaries.
Reply to: