Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 26 21:37, David Sastre Medina wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source
software.
I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has
made over the years, and decide if you really want to be constrained
use only things that make FSF happy.
FSF recommends use of existing licences (GNU licences, Apache
...), likewise OSI:
We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to
software you are releasing, rather than try to
waive copyright [= put into public domain] altogether.
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
CC0 is a bit more complicated than pure public domain.
... This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone
if the donated software causes harm (...) one [cannot] escape a
lawsuit just because his gift was only accidentally harmful.
CC0 contains a warranty disclaimer. (§4.b.)
If utmost free were the initial intention -- What was wrong with the
BSD[1] or MIT licenses, which are desinged to be Open Source software
licenses?
My point is that this is basically what you get, when you live
somewhere that doesn't allow public domain copyright disclaimer.
When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a
research. I concur with Corinna that the contents of the base-files package is
simple enough not to even worry about licensing, but as concern about
this reached the list[1], I simply looked for something a little bit more
serious
than the beer-ware[2] license and used it: I found the CC0 to be FSF[3]
approved,
and I thought it was an authoritative enough source of information.
I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I
definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the
files, because I'm only the mantainer here, and most of the code was
already there or has been contributed by others, so before I merge
those kindly sent pull-requests, I'd like to know if the copyright
attribution
As you state, the base files are a collective effort and everybody so
far was comfortable to leave the stuff in the public domain. It seems
wrong to imply that every contributor to this code would agree with the
move to pull the code out of PD. You could argue that the contributors
don't care, otherwise, why use a PD license? But that's not fair, is it?
in the headers could reference the cygwin project, something like:
( Copyright (c) 2010-2012 The cygwin project http://cygwin.com )
That's really not required, IMHO. The setup files in Fedora don't
have such a header either. The only copyright note is this text in
/usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
Setup package is public domain.
You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
without restrictions.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a
| research.
|
| I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I
| definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the
| files, because I'm only the maintainer
The maintainer is always listed as a member in Copyright. You don't need to
worry about previous maintainers in this case. You'll be contacted, if
anyone wants to chime in; it's always a priviledge to attribute prior work
of someone.
License and Copyright are two different things. The selected license
(assume we use BSD or GPL), will grant anyone the right to modify the files
now and later. The Copyright is automatic, as it is always there when
someone creates something; e.g. when you touch the code. The Copyright line
only announces this explicitly; it is also important for traceability.
| ( Copyright (c) 2010-2012 The cygwin project http://cygwin.com )
|
| That's really not required, IMHO.
As Corinna said, the above is used for organization/Corporate/Entity
Licenses and not usually applicable for individual packages outside of
organization.
| The setup files in Fedora don't have such a header either. The only
| copyright note is this text in /usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
|
| Setup package is public domain.
|
| You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
| without restrictions.
Arguable not safe choice any more today. It may have been 20-30 years ago
in a different world without companies and people suing and without
software patents around the corners.
Public domain is a vague and probematic concept. It does not offer any
protection against liabilities. For this reason every instance (see
previous mails) recommend including a proper license in software files.
Software Freedom Law Center has a nice talk about public domain. If
someone has time, listen parts 19:30 - 24:10 at
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2010/mar/16/0x23/
I think the reason why pubic domain sounds seductive was put well in the
aftertalk of withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process:
Clark C. Evans: So, what makes Unlicense [failed attempt] and these
public domain statements alluring is that they serve as vehicles for
their authors make a statement about public policy. The MIT/BSD simply
don't make a public statement this way, and hence, they don't have that
sort of irresistable attraction.
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-February/000209.html
Jari
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 27 16:46, Jari Aalto wrote:
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| The setup files in Fedora don't have such a header either. The only
| copyright note is this text in /usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
|
| Setup package is public domain.
|
| You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
| without restrictions.
Arguable not safe choice any more today. It may have been 20-30 years ago
in a different world without companies and people suing and without
software patents around the corners.
I asked our legal team for advice. Stay tuned.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote: 2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote: | https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git | | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side. No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects. | License in the base-files package contents. | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3? The relevant[1] big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to avoid license fragmentation is always a good move. Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea, why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service as our base-files package, PD licensed as well? Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
base-file: patches ORIGINAL_PATH, PS1, LC_ALL (was LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0)
2012-10-26 08:57 Achim Gratz stromeko-i47jitek...@public.gmane.org:
| David Sastre Medina writes:
|
| The only outstanding issue I can think of right now, would be
| to revert this change:
|
| -PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:${PATH}
| +ORIGINAL_PATH=${PATH}
| +PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin
|
| The details about this issue can be found here:
| http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00488.html
|
| Actually, I had posted three patches that avoid the reversion and fix
| two other long-standing issues way down that thread:
|
| http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00567.html
|
| I can send you the patches again or put a clone of base-files somewhere
| and let you pull from that, as you prefer.
David, I'v queued Achim's patches in this pull request:
https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files/pull/2
Jari
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote: 2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote: | https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git | | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side. No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects. | License in the base-files package contents. | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3? The relevant[1] big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to avoid license fragmentation is always a good move. Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea, why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service as our base-files package, PD licensed as well? Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses? Actually, it's kind of a shame that such files have to be put under a license at all. There should be a too obvious to license rule. Anyway, if all else fails, I'd prefer a 2-BSD license for these files. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On 2012-10-26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote: | | Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea, | why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service | as our base-files package, PD licensed as well? Perhaps it was done and forgotten. World is diferent today; software needs more scrutinizing nowadays. In Debian the sysprofile package is Dual licensed under both the GPL and BSD licenses. | Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts | under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses? We must remember that public domain is not a license[1]. The safe choices are the well known ones. Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump personal property in the public highway, there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, there is no mechanism in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain. http://rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm FSF, OSI and Attorneys[2] that specialize on Open Source, all recommend selecting a license over waiving copyright i.e. using public domain. Jari [1] CC0 tried to be, but the actual legal text may not make it no simpler or straightforward than the well understood and recognized BSD, MIT or GPL. [2] Search Google for Lawrence Rosen (former legal lead of OSI) or Mark Radcliffe (the intellectual property attorney who's general counsel to the Open Source Initiative)
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote: Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source software. I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has made over the years, and decide if you really want to be constrained use only things that make FSF happy. FSF recommends use of existing licences (GNU licences, Apache ...), likewise OSI: We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to software you are releasing, rather than try to waive copyright [= put into public domain] altogether. http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain CC0 is a bit more complicated than pure public domain. ... This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone if the donated software causes harm (...) one [cannot] escape a lawsuit just because his gift was only accidentally harmful. CC0 contains a warranty disclaimer. (§4.b.) If utmost free were the initial intention -- What was wrong with the BSD[1] or MIT licenses, which are desinged to be Open Source software licenses? My point is that this is basically what you get, when you live somewhere that doesn't allow public domain copyright disclaimer.
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote: Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source software. I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has made over the years, and decide if you really want to be constrained use only things that make FSF happy. FSF recommends use of existing licences (GNU licences, Apache ...), likewise OSI: We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to software you are releasing, rather than try to waive copyright [= put into public domain] altogether. http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain CC0 is a bit more complicated than pure public domain. ... This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone if the donated software causes harm (...) one [cannot] escape a lawsuit just because his gift was only accidentally harmful. CC0 contains a warranty disclaimer. (§4.b.) If utmost free were the initial intention -- What was wrong with the BSD[1] or MIT licenses, which are desinged to be Open Source software licenses? My point is that this is basically what you get, when you live somewhere that doesn't allow public domain copyright disclaimer. When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a research. I concur with Corinna that the contents of the base-files package is simple enough not to even worry about licensing, but as concern about this reached the list[1], I simply looked for something a little bit more serious than the beer-ware[2] license and used it: I found the CC0 to be FSF[3] approved, and I thought it was an authoritative enough source of information. I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the files, because I'm only the mantainer here, and most of the code was already there or has been contributed by others, so before I merge those kindly sent pull-requests, I'd like to know if the copyright attribution in the headers could reference the cygwin project, something like: ( Copyright (c) 2010-2012 The cygwin project http://cygwin.com ) That would be both fair and accurate. Thanks for any pointers. [1] Sorry, didn't find it in the archives, look for it around October 2011 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 -- Primary key fingerprint: AD8F BDC0 5A2C FD5F A179 60E7 F79B AB04 5299 EC56 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0
According to: git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is to my understanding recommended only for data (images, pure data files, databases etc.), or for code snippets that accompany documentation (e.g. code presented in manual). The base-files are infrastructure in Cygwin, so wouldn't using MIT, BSD, GPL or similar license work better for standard code? FSF[2] and OSI[3] recommend to select some known license for software projects. Jari [1] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html = topic Software [3] After review, not approved by OSI. See threads published http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero At this time, we do not recommend releasing software using the the CC0 public domain dedication. http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to software you are releasing, rather than try to waive copyright altogether. Using a clear, recognized Open Source license actually makes it easier for others to know that your software meets the Open Source Definition. It also enables the protection of attribution, and various other non-restrictive rights, that cannot be reliably enforced when there is no license.
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0
On 10/25/2012 12:43 AM, Jari Aalto wrote: According to: git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is to my understanding recommended only for data (images, pure data files, databases etc.), or for code snippets that accompany documentation (e.g. code presented in manual). According to the OSI FAQ item you pointed to, the problem is that the CC0 license doesn't stay mum on the subject of patent and trademark release, and it doesn't fork over all rights to relevant PT's. Other than that, what you have is basically BSD 3-clause in the worst case, where the local laws don't allow public domain. How is this a problem again? Are there patents and trademarks owned by these contributors that we think we will want to use in the future?
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
2012-10-25 17:17 Warren Young 2012-10-25 17:17 Warren Young | On 10/25/2012 12:43 AM, Jari Aalto wrote: | | According to: | | git clone git://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git base-files.git | | | May files are put out using CC0 license[1]. I'm wondering this as it is | to my understanding recommended only for data (images, pure data files, | databases etc.), or for code snippets that accompany documentation | (e.g. code presented in manual). | | According to the OSI FAQ item you pointed to, the problem is that | the CC0 license doesn't stay mum on the subject of patent and | trademark release, and it doesn't fork over all rights to relevant | PT's. Other than that, what you have is basically BSD 3-clause in | the worst case, where the local laws don't allow public domain. | | How is this a problem again? Are there patents and trademarks owned | by these contributors that we think we will want to use in the | future? Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source software. FSF recommends use of existing licences (GNU licences, Apache ...), likewise OSI: We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to software you are releasing, rather than try to waive copyright [= put into public domain] altogether. http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain Attorney Lawrence Rosen has written a nice summary: In Why the Public Domain Isn’t a License: ... the “public domain” solution for free and open source software is largely irrelevant (...) ... This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone if the donated software causes harm (...) one [cannot] escape a lawsuit just because his gift was only accidentally harmful. As any lawyer will warn his client, the risk of such a license is far greater than the warm feelings that enrich the soul of the giver (...) If you give software away, you may retain a risky warranty obligation. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 [Lawrence Rosen, an attorney with Rosenlaw and Einschlag who previously led OSI's legal work] CC0 seems to be good for its intended use: the data. But not for software, as the Creative commons spokesman, Christopher Allan Webber, explained in his CC0 withdrawal message: ... First of all, speculation that we did not anticipate CC0 usage for software at the time is true. [CC0 was designed for use in scientific community] http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html SUMMARY Regarding all the above and the base-files, I wonder why something was initially put under CC0. Sounds odd if we consider it is in the core of Cygwin::Base. If utmost free were the initial intention -- What was wrong with the BSD[1] or MIT licenses, which are desinged to be Open Source software licenses? I hope CC0 was not mistakenly considered to be just another licence only because it was released by Creative Commons. Jari - - - [1] For interested, Attorney Lawrence Rosen isn't particularly in favor of BSD license due to its possible inclarities regarding patents. See his comment in another public domain license thread http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:747:chenjkbbnllffijebmno.
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
I am not a lawyer, and most of this parlance goes far beyond my
understanding. I wouldn't mean any harm whatsoever to this project, or
would I purposedly introduced a legal flaw by using the Public Domain
License in the base-files package contents.
What would be more appropriate? GPLv3?
On other news, I'm frankly short of time to dedicate to base-files
mantainership. It has a long time pending promotion from test to
current. The aforementioned github repo is available to anyone who
would like to adopt it, as well as the packages from cygwin.com, of
course. The only outstanding issue I can think of right now, would be
to revert this change:
-PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:${PATH}
+ORIGINAL_PATH=${PATH}
+PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin
The details about this issue can be found here:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00488.html
I'm still actively monitoring the cygwin list, so I'll try to respond
promptly to any comments or suggestions regarding this question.
--
Primary key fingerprint: AD8F BDC0 5A2C FD5F A179 60E7 F79B AB04 5299 EC56
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote: | https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git | | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side. No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects. | License in the base-files package contents. | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3? The relevant[1] big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to avoid license fragmentation is always a good move. I'll provide you a patch against Github to switch to GPL-3+. Thank you for your work on improving the base-files project, Jari [1] For interested, the official license abbreviations are maintained at the Linux Foundation SPDX Open Source License Registry http://spdx.org/licenses/
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
David Sastre Medina writes:
The only outstanding issue I can think of right now, would be
to revert this change:
-PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:${PATH}
+ORIGINAL_PATH=${PATH}
+PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin
The details about this issue can be found here:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00488.html
Actually, I had posted three patches that avoid the reversion and fix
two other long-standing issues way down that thread:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00567.html
I can send you the patches again or put a clone of base-files somewhere
and let you pull from that, as you prefer.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]+
DIY Stuff:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/DIY.html
