Yet one more option: i have not ever used gitlab. However github requires a license only for public repositories. It can be made private until the licensing is straightened out.
However, i think it makes sense to figure this out before the conversion. If i understand correclty, you may want to add file headers to all files that existed at revision 3070. Or maybe we're overthinking this. In the US, the lack of a license means you have no permission to copy, distribute, or modify. That said, we do have a license file, even if it wasn't fully filled out and it is implemented since it's referenced somewhere in the code (though this is not necessary, in only needs to be in the repository). But the matter of when it was added, seems moot. It's there now. I'd call it an oversight that has since been corrected, especially in the spirit of the project, if I understand correctly, was always open source. Finally, I do not believe that copyright/licensing extends to revisions of code. Code versions are a natural product of using a version control system, arguably for convenience and collaboration. But, when it comes down to it, for example, in court, 2 versions of a software, even from the same repository could be considered to be distinct, if their code is different enough. And generally speaking, in court, a specific version of a binary, is matched up with a specific version of source code. You wouldnt assign blame to code that is newer than a binary in question. I know, binary code is not the best example, but software and intellectual property is a bit murky until it gets to court and a judge figures it out. But my last point is this: copyright is an active process. You have to actually file copyright with a particular body in order for it to exist. Take a look at the copyright publication I link below. Ref: https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ And: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiK7YOWvtnhAhXlmuAKHVLADOsQFjAKegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw3ytIj7pvuLjK4NzyolDBej On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:01 AM Pierre Labastie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/04/2019 04:56, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 14:18 Jeremy Huntwork > > <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Looking a little closer, it looks like contributors to a GPL-based > > project maintain copyright on their own contributions. That being > > said, the whole point of a license like that is to allow free use and > > duplication, provided the license stays with the work. To change the > > license, we would need to have permission from contributors whose > code > > remains, but there's nothing that prevents us from hosting it > > somewhere else and even modifying it. > > > > > > > > Reflecting even further, it does seem like we only halfway set up the > license. > > I implied GPL 2 by adding that alongside the code, but I didn’t > explicitly > > define that anywhere. It seems the copy of the license still has > template values. > > > > Regardless of whether you move it or not, it would probably make sense > to get > > the legal status under control... > > > > If we assume that the code is actually valid GPL'd, then you could > change the > > license if you get consent from those who have contributed to the > _current_ > > code. Or, if that's not possible to do, you could replace those parts of > the > > code with new/different code and then you should be able to place it > under a > > new license. > > > > Anyway, just some suggestions. > > The only place where the license is referenced (outside the LICENSE file > itself) is in "./jhalfs -v": > ------ > "jhalfs" builder tool (development) $Rev: 4098 $ > $Date: 2019-04-17 09:06:13 +0200 (mer. 17 avril 2019) $ > > Written by George Boudreau, Manuel Canales Esparcia, Pierre Labastie, > plus several contributions. > > Based on an idea from Jeremy Huntwork > > This set of files are published under the > Gnu General Public License, Version 2. > See the LICENCE file in this directory. > ------ > Note that I am responsible for adding the "See the LICENCE..." line (with > the > typo, fixed at rev 4099), and my name. All the others have been there since > rev 3070 (the first line was slightly modified depending on releases). > > But item 0 of the license tells: > "This License applies to any program or other work which contains > a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed > under the terms of this General Public License." > > We do not have that (at least not with the word "distributed"). > > So it is questionable whether jhalfs is licensed at all. > > Note: I am not a lawyer, and English is not my native language, so I may > well > be wrong. > > So I'd like to be sure that jhalfs is licensed before moving: if not, I or > any > author may be deemed as responsible for any modification made to the files > by > some third party. I do not fear somebody would try to reserve rights to > jhalf, > but I fear somebody adding bogus, or even unlawful code or statements, and > not > mentioning his/her name. Note that as long as jhalfs is hosted on higgs, we > can say that this is the only official implementation. This would be more > difficult if it had already been moved once. Here is what I propose, but I > do > not know whether it is practical: > > - Add a copyright notice and disclaimer as suggested by the LICENSE, to > each > file which can accept it: shell scripts, README and other text files, xml, > dtd > and xsl stylesheets (unless taken from another project of course). Some > files > may not accept it (e.g. optimize/opt_override), but most will. > > - Add one or several copyright holder(s) in the copyright notices. The > better > would be to have all the names of contributors, with active years, as > copyright holders: for example: > # Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Jeremy Huntwork < > [email protected]> > # Copyright (C) 2005-2007 Manuel Canales Esparcia <address> > Maybe we could just take the current revision of a file, run "svn > annotate", > and put the list of contributors with the dates of their contributions as > shown in the annotations. Somewhat time consuming, though... > > - If we need the consent of the seven persons who have contributed, ask > them, > but what to do if one of them does not answer? And do we really need to > ask, > since nothing is explicitly copyrighted? Note that I do not want to steel > others' work, just make it as simple as possible to start with legal > copyrights and license. > > Once this is done, ask Bryan (thanks for the offer, Bryan) to move to, to > what > actually: gitlab, github, something else? > > Pierre > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
