It might be useful to consider using one of the several standard open source licenses. This would help to avoid any confusion with what sounds like a bsd/MIT style license but with the added compilation term. I don't quite understand the additional term actually. If someone built the library but left out a single file would it still be a compilation? If only a single file were used? Its pretty confusing.
What is the intent behind that portion of the license? Btw copyright is retained by the original authors of the code in the code afaik but I presume you are copyrighting the actual compiled library? Couldn't someone else just make their own compilation and consider that an original compilation just the same? Chris On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Wei Dai <[email protected]> wrote: > "Compilation" is a standard legal term in U.S. copyright law. It's actually > defined by the copyright law itself > (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html): > > A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of > preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged > in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work > of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works. > (end quote) > > The individual files in the library are all public domain, some written by > people other than myself. So you can do whatever you want with individual > files, for example taking code snippets and putting them in your own > published source code without having to worry about copyright at all. But I'm > claiming compilation copyright over the library as a whole. The license still > allows you to do pretty much whatever you want with the compilation, with a > few exceptions, like republishing the whole library or a large part of it in > source code form without the license attached. > > My understanding is that once you link your program with Crypto++, the > resulting binary is considered a "derived work" of Crypto++ and its > distribution would fall under the license, but the terms of the license are > pretty liberal so that shouldn't cause any problems. > > I thought my explanation on the website was pretty clear, but apparently not. > Can anyone suggest any changes to the text that might make it clearer? > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Walton > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:19 PM > To: Crypto++ Users > Subject: Crypto++ License and meaning of "Compilation" > > Hi Wei, > > I was talking with some folks who are interested in using Crypto++. > They are slightly confused by the license - specifically, use of the > word "compilation" and its meaning in legal terms. Here's the way the > discussion carried on. > > "A distinction is made between the library as a compilation (i.e., > collection) .... and the individual files in it, which are public > domain." (website) > - Wei Dai is retaining copyright over all files that make up Crypto+ > +. If one or more files are missing from the collection of all files, > Dai is not asserting his copyright. Dai is retaining copyright on the > single ZIP file which contains the collection of all files. > > "The library is copyrighted as a compilation in order to place certain > disclaimers...." (website) > - Wei Dai is asserting copyright over the output of the compilation > and link process. It is unclear whether the assertion applies to all > resulting bianaries (for example, a DLL or LIB produced from the > sources by a programmer) or just the FIPS DLL (which [presumably] Dai > produced himself). > > "... compilation in any form, except in object code, ...." (license > text) > - Wei Dai is asserting his copyright on the collection of all source > files, and the resulting binary. Dai is not asserting the right for > intermediate files of the compilation process: the object files (*.o). > > "...If this compilation is used in object code form in an application > software..." (license text) > - Wei Dai is not asserting his copyright on intermediate files of the > compilation process (object files, *.o). A LIB is a collection of > intermediate object files, so Dai is not retaining copyright on a LIB. > However, Dai retains copyright over a DLL since the resuting binary is > not intermediate an can be executed. > > It seems the word compilation can be misinterpreted as "resulting > binary". Would you be able to clarify the use of "compilation'? > > Jeff > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" > Google Group. > To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at > http://www.cryptopp.com. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" > Google Group. > To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at > http://www.cryptopp.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
