[gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Torsten Veller]

Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
And in addition: When should a license be added to licenses/ ?

Do we only add those licenses to define valid names for the LICENSE
variable?

There are over 3MB in nearly 500 files. How will those licenses be
classified if ACCEPT_LICENSES (GLEP 23) is implemented?

Does the language of the license matter? (selfhtml is in german)

Aren't MIT and MetaKit and ... the same license?
Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
Should the licenses/ dir be cleaned?
(Should placeholders be used as in MIT?)

What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?

(Am i asking too many questions? Sorry, but i have the feeling that
this whole license stuff is not useful atm and i don't see how we
can deal with the great number of files in the future.)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

Torsten Veller wrote:
> Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?

;)

> Does the language of the license matter? (selfhtml is in german)

IMVHO: yes. I don't understand German, but English yes.

> Aren't MIT and MetaKit and ... the same license?
> Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
> Should the licenses/ dir be cleaned?
> (Should placeholders be used as in MIT?)

Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
ln -s MIT MetaKit

-- 
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik    RLU #322999    GPG:0xBC555551
gentoo - kernel 2.6.11-ck10
http://fatcat.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~nelchael/
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Jon Portnoy]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:31:46PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
> 
> ;)
> 
> > Does the language of the license matter? (selfhtml is in german)
> 
> IMVHO: yes. I don't understand German, but English yes.
> 
> > Aren't MIT and MetaKit and ... the same license?
> > Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
> > Should the licenses/ dir be cleaned?
> > (Should placeholders be used as in MIT?)
> 
> Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
> ln -s MIT MetaKit
> 

I don't know about this specific case but generally speaking licenses 
that're similar in language and intent have very small (often cosmetic) 
differences; if there is even the slightest difference it (legally) 
qualifies as a different license and probably really should be included 
separately to be safe

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2020 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:18 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
> Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
Because there should be an easy way to find licenses?
And you can do "emerge search foo", then read the license and decide
wether you want to install foo.

> And in addition: When should a license be added to licenses/ ?
When at least one ebuild uses a license that is not already there?

> Do we only add those licenses to define valid names for the LICENSE
> variable?
AFAIK the license variable is not really used (someone correct me if I'm mistakne, please)

> There are over 3MB in nearly 500 files. How will those licenses be
> classified if ACCEPT_LICENSES (GLEP 23) is implemented?
I guess groups ... OSI approved, "free", commercial, ...

> Does the language of the license matter? (selfhtml is in german)
I think licenses in English are preferred, but if it's only licensed with a german license ...
> Aren't MIT and MetaKit and ... the same license?
> Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
Maybe there's one paragraph changed - I haven't looked at them yet.
> Should the licenses/ dir be cleaned?
If by cleaned you mean unused licenses removed yes. If by cleaned you
mean "reduced to the bare minimum" I'd say no.
> (Should placeholders be used as in MIT?)
> 
> What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
> necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?
See first point. You want to read the license _before_ installing stuff
> (Am i asking too many questions? 
No ;-)
> Sorry, but i have the feeling that
> this whole license stuff is not useful atm and i don't see how we
> can deal with the great number of files in the future.)
I haven't seen this as a problem - it has worked quite well up to now.
Your concerns are valid, but as long as nobosy offers an alternative for
managing licenses, I wouldn't change our policy - doesn't seem broken to
me.

Patrick
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

Jon Portnoy wrote:
>>Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>ln -s MIT MetaKit
> I don't know about this specific case but generally speaking licenses 
> that're similar in language and intent have very small (often cosmetic) 
> differences; if there is even the slightest difference it (legally) 
> qualifies as a different license and probably really should be included 
> separately to be safe

Exactly my point :) I've looked at MIT and MetaKit and:

+Copyright (c) 1996-2001 Jean-Claude Wippler
-Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Except formatting and above diff theye are identical.

-- 
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik    RLU #322999    GPG:0xBC555551
gentoo - kernel 2.6.11-ck10
http://fatcat.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~nelchael/
.... now touch these wires to your tongue!
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Jon Portnoy]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> >>Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>ln -s MIT MetaKit
> > I don't know about this specific case but generally speaking licenses 
> > that're similar in language and intent have very small (often cosmetic) 
> > differences; if there is even the slightest difference it (legally) 
> > qualifies as a different license and probably really should be included 
> > separately to be safe
> 
> Exactly my point :) I've looked at MIT and MetaKit and:
> 
> +Copyright (c) 1996-2001 Jean-Claude Wippler
> -Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
> 
> Except formatting and above diff theye are identical.
> 

You're right; chances are this is a mistake on the part of whoever 
wrote/committed the MetaKit ebuild, it probably had a 'COPYING' file and 
whoever reviewed it didn't recognize the MIT license. File a bug

Either way the point still stands as far as licenses in general go 8)

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

Jon Portnoy wrote:
> You're right; chances are this is a mistake on the part of whoever 
> wrote/committed the MetaKit ebuild, it probably had a 'COPYING' file and 
> whoever reviewed it didn't recognize the MIT license. File a bug

Done: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96173

-- 
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik    RLU #322999    GPG:0xBC555551
gentoo - kernel 2.6.11-ck10
http://fatcat.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~nelchael/
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:31 +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
> 
> ;)
> 
> > Does the language of the license matter? (selfhtml is in german)
> 
> IMVHO: yes. I don't understand German, but English yes.
> 
> > Aren't MIT and MetaKit and ... the same license?
> > Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
> > Should the licenses/ dir be cleaned?
> > (Should placeholders be used as in MIT?)
> 
> Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
> ln -s MIT MetaKit

CVS doesn't allow symlinks

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:44 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Do we only add those licenses to define valid names for the LICENSE
> > variable?
> AFAIK the license variable is not really used (someone correct me if I'm mistakne, please)

It is used by some games ebuilds, for sure.

> > What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
> > necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?
> See first point. You want to read the license _before_ installing stuff

Actually, I can see the point in not needing to copy these files, as the
license is already specified in the ebuild and should be available in
$PORTDIR/licenses, so this is a redundancy.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then:
>>ln -s MIT MetaKit
> CVS doesn't allow symlinks

Ouch... right :) Forgot about that.

-- 
Krzysiek 'Nelchael' Pawlik    RLU #322999    GPG:0xBC555551
gentoo - kernel 2.6.11-ck10
http://fatcat.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~nelchael/
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 815 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:04:39AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
> > > necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?
> > See first point. You want to read the license _before_ installing stuff
> 
> Actually, I can see the point in not needing to copy these files, as the
> license is already specified in the ebuild and should be available in
> $PORTDIR/licenses, so this is a redundancy.

Exactly. Same with the INSTALL files we all know: "... These are generic
installation instructions. ...". It doesn't add anything, so don't
install it.

Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 15/06/05, Maurice van der Pot <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:04:39AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
> > > > necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?
> > > See first point. You want to read the license _before_ installing stuff

The obvious thing to do is to have a licenses package that install all
of the licenses somewhere. If someone wants to check a license they
emerge it first. /usr/portage/licenses does seem unnecessarily big for
the portage tree.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about licenses

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1334 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 18:38 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 15/06/05, Maurice van der Pot <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:04:39AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > > What about all these /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* files? Are they
> > > > > necessary if all licenses are in licenses/ ?
> > > > See first point. You want to read the license _before_ installing stuff
> 
> The obvious thing to do is to have a licenses package that install all
> of the licenses somewhere. If someone wants to check a license they
> emerge it first. /usr/portage/licenses does seem unnecessarily big for
> the portage tree.

Not really...

See, since emerge -s shows the license, it would mean that portage would
need to RDEPEND on the package.  Because of this, everyone would have
the package anyway.  That and it is much simpler to commit a single
license file to the tree when adding a package with a new license, then
it would be to download the license package tarball, unpack it,
increment the version number, copy your license in, repack it, upload it
to Gentoo's mirrors, wait for it to sync, update the license package in
the tree, wait for that to sync, then add your package.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about licenses

[Torsten Veller]

* Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>:
> On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:18 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
>
> > Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
>
> Because there should be an easy way to find licenses?
> And you can do "emerge search foo", then read the license and decide
> wether you want to install foo.
> 
> > And in addition: When should a license be added to licenses/ ?
>
> When at least one ebuild uses a license that is not already there?

Ok, here is a license: <http://rafb.net/paste/results/j88sYC87.html>
I couldn't decide if this one is present already.
All i have checked are slightly different. Maybe someone knows ;)

If it is not in licenses/, can someone suggest a name for this one?

> > There are over 3MB in nearly 500 files. How will those licenses be
> > classified if ACCEPT_LICENSES (GLEP 23) is implemented?
> I guess groups ... OSI approved, "free", commercial, ...

Classification <-> groups, sure.
But how? How can this be done with 500 files? Who wants to do this?
 
> > Aren't X11 and cdegood and JamesClark and ... the same license?
>
> Maybe there's one paragraph changed - I haven't looked at them yet.

I don't know how to diff them efficiently. I put every word in in a
line of its own. X11 is different - but cdegood and JamesClark differ
in something like "ask cdegroot" and "ask James Clark".
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about licenses

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200
Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:

> * Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:18 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
> >
> > > Why do we add a license to the licenses/ dir?
> >
> > Because there should be an easy way to find licenses?
> > And you can do "emerge search foo", then read the license and decide
> > wether you want to install foo.
> > 
> > > And in addition: When should a license be added to licenses/ ?
> >
> > When at least one ebuild uses a license that is not already there?
> 
> Ok, here is a license: <http://rafb.net/paste/results/j88sYC87.html>
> I couldn't decide if this one is present already.
> All i have checked are slightly different. Maybe someone knows ;)
> 
> If it is not in licenses/, can someone suggest a name for this one?

Looks like as-is.

> > > There are over 3MB in nearly 500 files. How will those licenses be
> > > classified if ACCEPT_LICENSES (GLEP 23) is implemented?
> > I guess groups ... OSI approved, "free", commercial, ...
> 
> Classification <-> groups, sure.
> But how? How can this be done with 500 files? Who wants to do this?

Personally I'd only make groups: needs user confirmation and doesn't
need user confirmation, as those are the only ones that have a
technical reason (and the former group already needs special treatment).
At most also use external lists of licenses like OSI or FSF, but IMO it
would be a bad idea to provide any set of "free" licenses or use other
vague/ subjective limitations.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about licenses

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 16/06/05, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200
> Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, here is a license: <http://rafb.net/paste/results/j88sYC87.html>
> > I couldn't decide if this one is present already.
> > All i have checked are slightly different. Maybe someone knows ;)
> >
> > If it is not in licenses/, can someone suggest a name for this one?
> 
> Looks like as-is.

Reclassifying a license based on what it "looks like" and then
redistributing software puts Gentoo into an undesirable legal
position. Gentoo developers are not IP lawyers - none of us I have the
training to assess whether two licenses are equal. Additionally, many
license texts are actually based on something like as-is, but with
minor changes. Unless a package explicity says "this software is
distributed under the xxx license", then it shouldn't be classed as
being under that license - developers have no right to represent the
license of a package as being anything other than a perfect
reproduction of the license in the package archive.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list