+1 to the change. Not quite sure how we drifted there, but it may well have been my doing during the split. We have defined in our IPython license file "The IPython Development Team is the set of all contributors to the IPython project," so it is already synonymous with Contributors, and has never been an entity. But if using the plural "Contributors" text is clearer than the collective "Team", that's fine, too, and changes no meaning.
-MinRK On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I recently noticed that there's something funny about the way our license > is worded compared to the BSD template... > > Our licenses say > > "Neither the name of JupyterLab...", "... name of Jupyter...", etc... > > But the original BSD template reads ( > https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause) > > "Neither the name of the copyright holder..." > > and the term "copyright holder" isn't a variable to template over, just > the words "copyright holder". In our case, that is "Project Jupyter" in > some licenses, and I'd argue it should read "Project Jupyter Team" to > indicate that it's the *people*, not the abstract/legal project entity... > > I didn't realize that our licenses had changed in this way, but in a sense > we are NOT using BSD! We've made a subtle but important change, as we've > basically added a trademark barrier in the third clause (hence this > question the person is asking), whereas the original third clause is about > *endorsement of promotion*. > > I had never noticed this, but I would argue that our licenses should: > > 1. All read: > > Copyright... The Project Jupyter Development Team. > > > This would convey the fact that we're talking about the people who wrote > the code. It's our shorthand for the union of all `git shortlog -sne`... > > > 2. Actually use the real BSD license text, not some subtly modified > version. That means that other than filling in the placeholders, we leave > the body of text unmodified. > > > What do people think? > > Cheers, > > ps - sorry that I'm sending this and going offline, the discussion started > on the council list and Jason correctly pointed out that this is really an > open topic... Reposting here for reference, hopefully others can provide > feedback in my absence. > > -- > Fernando Perez (@fperez_org; http://fperez.org) > fperez.net-at-gmail: mailing lists only (I ignore this when swamped!) > fernando.perez-at-berkeley: contact me here for any direct mail > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Project Jupyter" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to jupyter+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to jupyter@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jupyter/CAHAreOoQjN%2BA41qoyXy5ZUUjL_kL9g8Xd2RVMdWvJ_eW62wToQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jupyter/CAHAreOoQjN%2BA41qoyXy5ZUUjL_kL9g8Xd2RVMdWvJ_eW62wToQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Jupyter" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jupyter+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to jupyter@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jupyter/CAHNn8BUJ0FC4HqTkPM6Cd0L0F6HUQdCOozPNgW3YLP%2Br3fVc-g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
