Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
done! http://www.antlr2.org/license.html On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Terence Parr dixit: http://www.antlr2.org/license.html OK, now we got the (as far as I see) final piece, too. I suggest to add another paragraph, possibly this: pThe Python parser generator code under antlr/actions/python/ is covered by the 3-clause BSD licence (this part is included in the binary JAR files); the run-time part under lib/python/ is covered by the GNU GPL, version 3 or later (this part is not included in the binary JAR files). See a href=https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=750643#80 here/a for the full details./p That’s all from me on this, then. (Finally, we can go back to hacking…) bye, //mirabilos -- Forwarded message -- From: wolfgang haefelinger w...@haefelinger.it Message-ID: cafsqz9nhulfvv+7wvpdnk9kez1e84v4cosj_y91q9ec2wwd...@mail.gmail.com Sender: whaefelin...@gmail.com To: Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de Cc: 750...@bugs.debian.org Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:03:59 +0200 Subject: Re: Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR Hello Debian, the PyAntlr extension of Antlr consists of two software parts: (1) A generator source code located in antlr/actions/python ; and a (2) runt-time library located in lib/python I herewith declare, that o part (1) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause ; and further, that o part (2) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license GPL version 3 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) // Wolfgang Häfelinger On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red for a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be everything anyone could ever need. which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) What file name does Debian then propose? This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing, so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good. Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would be a licence, so this point is moot anyway. 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ My statement is then: o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD software license. That is one of these? * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL software license. This also, unfortunately, has got several options… * GPL, any version * GPL version 2 only * GPL version 2 or later * GPL version 3 only * GPL version 3 or later * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be used in an official statement? Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-) Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a half-backed website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those license details. Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now. If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can be shown at the official Antlr site. Thanks for your patience! bye, //mirabilos -- igli exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. igli just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. igli it's like anti-design. mirabilos that too… may I quote you on that? igli sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59) -- Dictation in use. Please excuse homophones, malapropisms, and nonsense.
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hello Debian, the PyAntlr extension of Antlr consists of two software parts: (1) A generator source code located in antlr/actions/python ; and a (2) runt-time library located in lib/python I herewith declare, that o part (1) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause ; and further, that o part (2) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license GPL version 3 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) // Wolfgang Häfelinger On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red for a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be everything anyone could ever need. which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) What file name does Debian then propose? This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing, so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good. Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would be a licence, so this point is moot anyway. 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ My statement is then: o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD software license. That is one of these? * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL software license. This also, unfortunately, has got several options… * GPL, any version * GPL version 2 only * GPL version 2 or later * GPL version 3 only * GPL version 3 or later * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be used in an official statement? Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-) Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a half-backed website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those license details. Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now. If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can be shown at the official Antlr site. Thanks for your patience! bye, //mirabilos -- igli exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. igli just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. igli it's like anti-design. mirabilos that too… may I quote you on that? igli sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59)
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Terence Parr dixit: http://www.antlr2.org/license.html OK, now we got the (as far as I see) final piece, too. I suggest to add another paragraph, possibly this: pThe Python parser generator code under antlr/actions/python/ is covered by the 3-clause BSD licence (this part is included in the binary JAR files); the run-time part under lib/python/ is covered by the GNU GPL, version 3 or later (this part is not included in the binary JAR files). See a href=https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=750643#80;here/a for the full details./p That’s all from me on this, then. (Finally, we can go back to hacking…) bye, //mirabilos -- Forwarded message -- From: wolfgang haefelinger w...@haefelinger.it Message-ID: cafsqz9nhulfvv+7wvpdnk9kez1e84v4cosj_y91q9ec2wwd...@mail.gmail.com Sender: whaefelin...@gmail.com To: Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de Cc: 750...@bugs.debian.org Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:03:59 +0200 Subject: Re: Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR Hello Debian, the PyAntlr extension of Antlr consists of two software parts: (1) A generator source code located in antlr/actions/python ; and a (2) runt-time library located in lib/python I herewith declare, that o part (1) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause ; and further, that o part (2) has been released into the wild under the conditions of license GPL version 3 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) // Wolfgang Häfelinger On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red for a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be everything anyone could ever need. which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) What file name does Debian then propose? This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing, so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good. Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would be a licence, so this point is moot anyway. 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ My statement is then: o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD software license. That is one of these? * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL software license. This also, unfortunately, has got several options… * GPL, any version * GPL version 2 only * GPL version 2 or later * GPL version 3 only * GPL version 3 or later * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be used in an official statement? Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-) Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a half-backed website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those license details. Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now. If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can be shown at the official Antlr site. Thanks for your patience! bye, //mirabilos -- igli exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. igli just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. igli it's like anti-design. mirabilos that too… may I quote you on that? igli sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Terence Parr wrote: Here you go :) http://www.antlr2.org/license.html Thanks, wonderful! I really appreciate you taking the time for this. Now we have this statement and Wolfgang’s (who “only” needs to decide on which BSD variants and GPL versions he wants), which removes every _possible_ legal issue, so everyone involved can *finally* go back to hacking, which, I am sure, we all prefer over dealing with licences ☺ bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
excellent! Ter On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Thorsten Glaser t.gla...@tarent.de wrote: On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Terence Parr wrote: Here you go :) http://www.antlr2.org/license.html Thanks, wonderful! I really appreciate you taking the time for this. Now we have this statement and Wolfgang’s (who “only” needs to decide on which BSD variants and GPL versions he wants), which removes every _possible_ legal issue, so everyone involved can *finally* go back to hacking, which, I am sure, we all prefer over dealing with licences ☺ bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Here you go :) http://www.antlr2.org/license.html Ter On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Terence Parr pa...@cs.usfca.edu wrote: Hi Thorsten,Unfortunately I’m extremely busy and have two versions ahead of v2 so I really don’t care about it much anymore. What specifically would you need me to do? simply add a bit of language to the license page on the web? That I could do. T On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Hello Terence, in http://bugs.debian.org/750643 I wrote: It would really be easier for everyone if Antlr itself would say, for example: “In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the authors grant a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence.” (Please see there for the larger context.) I’m writing here since we have two problems: • Contributions of most EU citizens cannot be Public Domain • Public Domain does not really work across country boundaries unlike copyright licences, which are harmonised by the Berne Convention Would you be willing to (retroactively; but no need to make new releases for this, just answer and maybe PGP-sign) add this to Antlr? I’m especially concerned about Antlr 2.7.7 which my cow- orkers use in a project, but I think the general public would benefit from this applying to all versions of it. (Are there other major authors of code in Antlr? On the other hand, I was being told that a US American can take PD work and, as long as he has copyright on a part of it, licence the larger work any way they see fit, so a licence from the one majority author is probably fine too.) Please keep the Debian bugtracker in Cc so we have a record of this. Thanks in advance, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence.-- Coywolf Qi Hunt -- Dictation in use. Please excuse homophones, malapropisms, and nonsense.
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Terence Parr dixit: Can you send me the exactLanguage you would need so I can examine it? Sure. How about this: In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the author grants a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence. The assumption here is that OSI never revokes licences unless they were errorneously approved (they only retire old ones). This language was ACK’d by the author of what has now become mksh (a project of mine) as well already. But if you have suggestions to change it, do tell. Thanks, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red for a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. Sure. Let’s just add editorial notes from Terence and you to clean up the licence situation. We will put that into debian/copyright, and you (Terence, probably) can put it up on the website, and that should be everything anyone could ever need. which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) What file name does Debian then propose? This is not about Debian (they do not ship those files anyway, but collect all licencing information in a central file) but about PD versus licences. But this does not matter – we’re not re-releasing, so we just put the updated info “somewhere”, and everything is good. Besides, with the proposed language I sent to Terence, there would be a licence, so this point is moot anyway. 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ My statement is then: o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD software license. That is one of these? * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause * http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL software license. This also, unfortunately, has got several options… * GPL, any version * GPL version 2 only * GPL version 2 or later * GPL version 3 only * GPL version 3 or later * GPL version (1 or) 2 or 3 only So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be used in an official statement? Yes, of course. Just solve the above choices ;-) Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a half-backed website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those license details. Just per eMail to this bugreport is enough. It would be good if you can PGP sign it, but that’s not been required until now. If you update a website, sure, put it up there. Otherwise, I’d suggest (once finished) you also send it to Terence, so it can be shown at the official Antlr site. Thanks for your patience! bye, //mirabilos -- igli exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. igli just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. igli it's like anti-design. mirabilos that too… may I quote you on that? igli sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Terence Parr dixit: Hi Thorsten,Unfortunately I’m extremely busy and have two versions ahead of v2 so I really don’t care about it much anymore. What Hi Terence, in this case I really appreciate your answer! specifically would you need me to do? simply add a bit of language to the license page on the web? That I could do. Yes please, and mail back to us that we can apply this licence to all older versions as well (i.e. that it’s valid retroactively even though we do not touch the older versions’ codebase). bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hi Debian, hi Thorsten, (first of all, you are correct, let's continue in English). Grundsätzlich möchte ich jedoch die fehlende Lizenz ergänzen ohne viel Aufwand zu erzeugen. Eine neue Antlr 2.x Version wird es wohl nicht geben, bin nicht sicher ob ich das überhaupt könnte (technisch ja, rechtlich??). Hm. Im konkreten Fall würde ich trotzdem dazu raten, da der Rest von Antlr ja unter weniger restriktiven Bedingungen verfügbar ist. Discussed this with the original author of Antlr. The lights are on red for a new 2.7 release and I'm currently not willing to create a fork. which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) What file name does Debian then propose? I urge you to choose a licence like the MIT or BSD one for it, to stay compatible to other libs that may be integrated into the same Java project. Both are fine with me, so I would like to get going with BSD. I think that, for Debian, all we need is a statement from you which licence(s) you choose for which parts. • For Debian, please just state which licence(s) you choose for 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ My statement is then: o All source code packed with (1) is released in terms of the BSD software license. p All source code packed with (2) is released in terms of the GPL software license. So, can you help me reformulate them so that they look proper and can be used in an official statement? Second, how shall I transmit this statement to Debian? There is a half-backed website [1] - maintained by me - where I could put those license details. [1] http://workbench.haefelinger.it/pyantlr // Wolfgang On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Hi! More in the private reply to the private message… and a tl;dr at the end. wolfgang haefelinger dixit: *That being said, I do not know why the antlr *.jar file includes the Python code, as it does not need to. I have not understood this either, but in the current released version of Antlr 2.x it’s there. If the antlr upstream distributes the binary *.jar file with it, thiswill not be a problem.* Please define “this will not be a problem”… This sentence is still confusing. It is a fact that antlr2-*.jar does not contain *any* Python code. However, it contains the Java part of the pyAntlr code generator plugin (path: antlr/actions/python/**). This code is written by me, however, nowhere are the words copyright or license mentioned. By Berne Convention, and thus also national law, this means it’s proprietary material of yours. Therefore I conclude, that this code is fully covered by LICENSE.txt listed in the root of antlr-*.tar.gz (or other distributions listed at http://www.antlr2.org/download.html). The funny thing there is that “Public Domain” does not work for you. A German citizen is, by law, not permitted to wilfully relinquish copyright, which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) It would really be easier for everyone if Antlr itself would say, for example: “In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the authors grant a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence.” Then you could just choose one or several Open Source licences for your parts. (GPL, while perfectly fine in itself and as your choice, will not work for the majority of the Java™ ecosystem: GPLv2 is not compatible with Apache v2; GPLv3 is but isn’t compatible with LGPLv2.x, and no GPL is complatible with CPL/EPL or *shudder* CDDL. Thus, most people dealing with Java™ will have to remove PyAntlr from it anyway.) For the binary JAR, only antlr/actions/python/ seems to be relevant. Due to the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to choose a licence like the MIT or BSD one for it, to stay compatible to other libs that may be integrated into the same Java project. Thus there is a remaining Python part in lib/python, part of the source code distribution (http://www.antlr2.org/download/antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz). Indeed, the license details are there in a bad shape. Right. This seems to be entirely separate, and not relevant for the JAR, so GPL is probably fine here, from a compatibility PoV. My proposal to get rid of the problem is: (a) pyANTLR-*.jar = The pyANTLR code generator plugin for Python written in Java, depending on antlr-*.jar. Technically, this would be the antlr/actions/python/** part found in the antlr*.jar file This could be separate or stay in the normal Antlr JAR file. Both is fine either way, for Debian, it “just” needs a licence. If the licence is “liberal” enough (like BSD/MIT, or even “LGPLv2.1 or later” but I
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Can you send me the exactLanguage you would need so I can examine it? thanks, Ter On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:06 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Terence Parr dixit: Hi Thorsten,Unfortunately I’m extremely busy and have two versions ahead of v2 so I really don’t care about it much anymore. What Hi Terence, in this case I really appreciate your answer! specifically would you need me to do? simply add a bit of language to the license page on the web? That I could do. Yes please, and mail back to us that we can apply this licence to all older versions as well (i.e. that it’s valid retroactively even though we do not touch the older versions’ codebase). bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hi! More in the private reply to the private message… and a tl;dr at the end. wolfgang haefelinger dixit: *That being said, I do not know why the antlr *.jar file includes the Python code, as it does not need to. I have not understood this either, but in the current released version of Antlr 2.x it’s there. If the antlr upstream distributes the binary *.jar file with it, thiswill not be a problem.* Please define “this will not be a problem”… This sentence is still confusing. It is a fact that antlr2-*.jar does not contain *any* Python code. However, it contains the Java part of the pyAntlr code generator plugin (path: antlr/actions/python/**). This code is written by me, however, nowhere are the words copyright or license mentioned. By Berne Convention, and thus also national law, this means it’s proprietary material of yours. Therefore I conclude, that this code is fully covered by LICENSE.txt listed in the root of antlr-*.tar.gz (or other distributions listed at http://www.antlr2.org/download.html). The funny thing there is that “Public Domain” does not work for you. A German citizen is, by law, not permitted to wilfully relinquish copyright, which is why the “LICENSE.txt” of Antlr itself does not work for you. (Side fact: it’s misnamed because PD means absence of the need for a licence.) It would really be easier for everyone if Antlr itself would say, for example: “In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the authors grant a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence.” Then you could just choose one or several Open Source licences for your parts. (GPL, while perfectly fine in itself and as your choice, will not work for the majority of the Java™ ecosystem: GPLv2 is not compatible with Apache v2; GPLv3 is but isn’t compatible with LGPLv2.x, and no GPL is complatible with CPL/EPL or *shudder* CDDL. Thus, most people dealing with Java™ will have to remove PyAntlr from it anyway.) For the binary JAR, only antlr/actions/python/ seems to be relevant. Due to the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to choose a licence like the MIT or BSD one for it, to stay compatible to other libs that may be integrated into the same Java project. Thus there is a remaining Python part in lib/python, part of the source code distribution (http://www.antlr2.org/download/antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz). Indeed, the license details are there in a bad shape. Right. This seems to be entirely separate, and not relevant for the JAR, so GPL is probably fine here, from a compatibility PoV. My proposal to get rid of the problem is: (a) pyANTLR-*.jar = The pyANTLR code generator plugin for Python written in Java, depending on antlr-*.jar. Technically, this would be the antlr/actions/python/** part found in the antlr*.jar file This could be separate or stay in the normal Antlr JAR file. Both is fine either way, for Debian, it “just” needs a licence. If the licence is “liberal” enough (like BSD/MIT, or even “LGPLv2.1 or later” but I don’t know if this may not bite people with very unusual combinations), there is no need to separate it from the rest of Antlr, AFAICT. (b) pyANTLR.zip= The pyANTLR Python library. Technically, this would be the lib/python/** part of antlr-*.tar.gz (or other source code distribution) modified to have a proper license while otherwise unchanged. Since this is not part of the binary JAR in the Maven Central repository, this does not affect the part of me that writes this from the dayjob. Choose any licence you want here ;-) In fact, GPL is probably good here if you’re into copyleft. With a Debian Developer hat on, I can also just say that this needs a licence declared; any Open Source licence that is DFSG-free (which almost all of them are) will do. You, Debian, you would then ignore (or wipe) the pyANTLR part of the original antlr-2.* distribution and instead add at least (b) to your system. I think that, for Debian, all we need is a statement from you which licence(s) you choose for which parts. Everything else is up to the package maintainers. Debian probably does not need to split, wipe, ignore, etc. anything then. Sorry for making this situation so complicated. I’m writing with two separate “hats” on, which both have a shared problem (absence of a licence). Only the “work” hat looks at the JAR in the Maven repository (and compatibility with the majority of the Java™ eco- system). The “Debian” hat looks at the source code, ignores all binary artefacts (Debian builds them by itself), and looks at licence compatibility only within Debian (which does ship such a large majority of the entire Open Source ecosystem that there is a saying “if it’s not in Debian it doesn’t exist”). So, tl;dr: • For Debian, please just state which licence(s) you choose for 1) antlr/actions/python/ 2) lib/python/ They need not be the same. •
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hello Terence, in http://bugs.debian.org/750643 I wrote: It would really be easier for everyone if Antlr itself would say, for example: “In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the authors grant a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence.” (Please see there for the larger context.) I’m writing here since we have two problems: • Contributions of most EU citizens cannot be Public Domain • Public Domain does not really work across country boundaries unlike copyright licences, which are harmonised by the Berne Convention Would you be willing to (retroactively; but no need to make new releases for this, just answer and maybe PGP-sign) add this to Antlr? I’m especially concerned about Antlr 2.7.7 which my cow- orkers use in a project, but I think the general public would benefit from this applying to all versions of it. (Are there other major authors of code in Antlr? On the other hand, I was being told that a US American can take PD work and, as long as he has copyright on a part of it, licence the larger work any way they see fit, so a licence from the one majority author is probably fine too.) Please keep the Debian bugtracker in Cc so we have a record of this. Thanks in advance, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hi Thorsten,Unfortunately I’m extremely busy and have two versions ahead of v2 so I really don’t care about it much anymore. What specifically would you need me to do? simply add a bit of language to the license page on the web? That I could do. T On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Hello Terence, in http://bugs.debian.org/750643 I wrote: It would really be easier for everyone if Antlr itself would say, for example: “In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be valid, the authors grant a copyright licence to the general public to deal in the work without restriction and permission to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved) Open Source licence.” (Please see there for the larger context.) I’m writing here since we have two problems: • Contributions of most EU citizens cannot be Public Domain • Public Domain does not really work across country boundaries unlike copyright licences, which are harmonised by the Berne Convention Would you be willing to (retroactively; but no need to make new releases for this, just answer and maybe PGP-sign) add this to Antlr? I’m especially concerned about Antlr 2.7.7 which my cow- orkers use in a project, but I think the general public would benefit from this applying to all versions of it. (Are there other major authors of code in Antlr? On the other hand, I was being told that a US American can take PD work and, as long as he has copyright on a part of it, licence the larger work any way they see fit, so a licence from the one majority author is probably fine too.) Please keep the Debian bugtracker in Cc so we have a record of this. Thanks in advance, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence.-- Coywolf Qi Hunt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Hello, *That being said, I do not know why the antlr *.jar file includes the Python code, as it does not need to. If the antlr upstream distributes the binary *.jar file with it, thiswill not be a problem.* This sentence is still confusing. It is a fact that antlr2-*.jar does not contain *any* Python code. However, it contains the Java part of the pyAntlr code generator plugin (path: antlr/actions/python/**). This code is written by me, however, nowhere are the words copyright or license mentioned. Therefore I conclude, that this code is fully covered by LICENSE.txt listed in the root of antlr-*.tar.gz (or other distributions listed at http://www.antlr2.org/download.html). Thus there is a remaining Python part in lib/python, part of the source code distribution (http://www.antlr2.org/download/antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz). Indeed, the license details are there in a bad shape. My proposal to get rid of the problem is: (a) pyANTLR-*.jar = The pyANTLR code generator plugin for Python written in Java, depending on antlr-*.jar. Technically, this would be the antlr/actions/python/** part found in the antlr*.jar file (b) pyANTLR.zip= The pyANTLR Python library. Technically, this would be the lib/python/** part of antlr-*.tar.gz (or other source code distribution) modified to have a proper license while otherwise unchanged. You, Debian, you would then ignore (or wipe) the pyANTLR part of the original antlr-2.* distribution and instead add at least (b) to your system. Your comments please. Kind regards, Wolfgang Häfelinger On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Allright, so what is the procedure now to use http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html? ⇒ generic part As copyright owner, all you have to do is to ensure that the people distributing antlr include a LICENSE.txt file in the Python subdirectory of their distribution which states this fact. You should also specify which version(s) of the licence. For example: • GPL version 1 only • GPL version 1 or later • GPL version 2 only • GPL version 2 or later • GPL version 3 only • GPL version 3 or later The “only” ones lead to interoperability problems, so I suggest an “or later” version, as your software is something usually combined with other code, i.e. a library of sorts. Using the GNU GPL will also make (the Python part of) antlr incompatible with licences such as the EPL, which are unfortunately common in the Java™ world. That being said, I do not know why the antlr *.jar file includes the Python code, as it does not need to. If the antlr upstream distributes the binary *.jar file with it, this will not be a problem. ⇒ Debian part The Debian package maintainers can add the relevant information, and possibly separate the Python part from the Java™ part, by themselves, if you notify them of this decision of yours (i.e. to use the GPL and which versions). For this, replying to the Debian bug eMail address is enough. Of course, Debian would want to stay in sync with upstream on this. ⇒ Upstream part Please contact the people who develop antlr 2.x and notify them of your decision, and ask them to release an updated antlr version including the licence file, and to prominently state this erratum on their website. ⇒ Other antlr versions I’ve only looked at antlr 2.x (since coworkers at the dayjob wanted to use this in a project of theirs, and since it is in Debian). If antlr 3.x and/or 4.x also include your code, please notify the people developing those as well. Thanks, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59)
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
wolfgang haefelinger dixit: Allright, so what is the procedure now to use http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html? ⇒ generic part As copyright owner, all you have to do is to ensure that the people distributing antlr include a LICENSE.txt file in the Python subdirectory of their distribution which states this fact. You should also specify which version(s) of the licence. For example: • GPL version 1 only • GPL version 1 or later • GPL version 2 only • GPL version 2 or later • GPL version 3 only • GPL version 3 or later The “only” ones lead to interoperability problems, so I suggest an “or later” version, as your software is something usually combined with other code, i.e. a library of sorts. Using the GNU GPL will also make (the Python part of) antlr incompatible with licences such as the EPL, which are unfortunately common in the Java™ world. That being said, I do not know why the antlr *.jar file includes the Python code, as it does not need to. If the antlr upstream distributes the binary *.jar file with it, this will not be a problem. ⇒ Debian part The Debian package maintainers can add the relevant information, and possibly separate the Python part from the Java™ part, by themselves, if you notify them of this decision of yours (i.e. to use the GPL and which versions). For this, replying to the Debian bug eMail address is enough. Of course, Debian would want to stay in sync with upstream on this. ⇒ Upstream part Please contact the people who develop antlr 2.x and notify them of your decision, and ask them to release an updated antlr version including the licence file, and to prominently state this erratum on their website. ⇒ Other antlr versions I’ve only looked at antlr 2.x (since coworkers at the dayjob wanted to use this in a project of theirs, and since it is in Debian). If antlr 3.x and/or 4.x also include your code, please notify the people developing those as well. Thanks, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Source: antlr Version: 2.7.7+dfsg-5 Severity: serious Tags: upstream Justification: Policy 2.3 The PyANTLR component – lib/python/antlr/ in the source tree – was written by Wolfgang Häfelinger, who, according to his website, is German. The PyANTLR component references a “LICENSE.txt” file “for license details”, which is missing. The top-level licence file of antlr cannot be meant by it, because German citizens cannot disclaim copyright and let their work wilfully enter Public Domain. This means that PyANTLR is unlicenced proprietary software, unless the author adds a DFSG-free licence for his code and the Debian maintainer adds it to debian/copyright accordingly. I’ve added Wolfgang Häfelinger to Cc, so he can comment directly and is notified about this issue. -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/lksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#750643: antlr: missing licence for PyANTLR
Allright, so what is the procedure now to use http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html? On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote: Source: antlr Version: 2.7.7+dfsg-5 Severity: serious Tags: upstream Justification: Policy 2.3 The PyANTLR component – lib/python/antlr/ in the source tree – was written by Wolfgang Häfelinger, who, according to his website, is German. The PyANTLR component references a “LICENSE.txt” file “for license details”, which is missing. The top-level licence file of antlr cannot be meant by it, because German citizens cannot disclaim copyright and let their work wilfully enter Public Domain. This means that PyANTLR is unlicenced proprietary software, unless the author adds a DFSG-free licence for his code and the Debian maintainer adds it to debian/copyright accordingly. I’ve added Wolfgang Häfelinger to Cc, so he can comment directly and is notified about this issue. -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/lksh -- Wolfgang Häfelinger häfelinger IT - Applied Software Architecture http://www.haefelinger.it +49 1520 32 52 981 (+31 648 27 61 59)
