Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added the GPL copyright notice to it now. Since the module description says LGPL, it effectively means the file is under LGPL. Thanks. That sounds quite reasonable to me. (Like I said, my opinion was just a layman's one, and it's clearly a judgment call.) Bison is GPLed, but Bison puts a copyright notice (the GPL with a special exception) into the source-code files that it generates automatically. Users are of course free to modify Bison to emit a different license, but if they redistribute the resulting output in violation of the Bison terms, they are still in violation of Bison's license. Why would this be a violation of Bison's license? Because the bison output contains a significant portion of bison code (not just data generated from the input files and the DFA)? Yes, that's it. Bison's output contains a significant chunk of Bison code -- about 1300 lines in the traditional case of an LALR(1) parser written in C -- that are clearly copyrightable.
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib / m4
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But since *.m4 files are often copied from one module to another, Isn't this much like saying source code is often copied from one *.c file to another? The FSF can do this, even if the code movement crosses the LGPL/GPL boundary, since the FSF has the copyright. It shouldn't be a real problem in practice, if we do a similar thing for *.m4 files. The question here is whether these m4 files are more like Emacs's .el files, or more like Autoconf's m4 files. They are more like Autoconf's m4 files, IMO. If we want to migrate some of that code into Autoconf, that would be fine. We can change the license then, as the FSF owns the copyright. In the meantime, the m4 files are useful only for GPLed packages, so the GPL is appropriate and is the more-conservative choice. But we certainly want to have the license clause to be as clear as possible, If we distribute GPLed modules under the terms of the GPL, that's pretty clear. It's somewhat more confusing if some of the module is GPLed and the rest is distributed under different terms. The question does come up: The vim author doesn't want to use *.m4 files from GNU because he thinks it would infect vim with GPL. So he makes up his own autoconf tests for iconv() and gettext(), which then don't work on half of the platforms or in half of the configurations. The gettext module is LGPLed. vim-like issues shouldn't arise in a GPLed module, since the source code is GPLed and people who are worried about infection won't use it. I realize that having some .m4 files under the GPL, and others under a more-permissive license, is confusing. But this sort of confusion is inevitable in a mixed-license software group like gnulib. The GNU project purposely tries to lean in the GPL direction, and discourages the use of the LGPL. Since we already have to deal with the problem with .c files, we might as well use a similar solution for .m4 files.
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For these borrowed files from other GNU or free software projects, I think we
still need an explicit note in the files distributed as part of gnulib.
OK, let's start with atanl.c and logl.c. I see that glibc has fixed
this problem by adding a proper copyright notice. Also, I see that
gnulib has departed from the glibc code in some cases where it doesn't
need to (and this arguably could introduce a bug). So I installed
the following patch to fix both problems.
2004-10-06 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* lib/atanl.c, lib/logl.c:
Add GPL notice, to match glibc's added LGPL notice.
* lib/atanl.c (atanl): Keep the code as similar to glibc as possible.
* lib/logl.c (logl): Keep the code as similar to glibc as possible.
This avoids a potential constant-folding bug.
Index: lib/atanl.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/atanl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -p -u -r1.1 atanl.c
--- lib/atanl.c 18 Feb 2003 17:05:23 - 1.1
+++ lib/atanl.c 6 Oct 2004 19:59:05 -
@@ -42,7 +42,22 @@
*
*/
-/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
+/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
+ any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ along with this program; see the file COPYING.
+ If not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
#include mathl.h
@@ -161,19 +176,25 @@ atanl (long double x)
int k, sign;
long double t, u, p, q;
- sign = (x 0) ? -1 : 1;
+ sign = x 0.0;
/* Check for zero or NaN. */
if (x != x || x == 0.0)
return x + x;
- /* Check for infinity. */
if (x + x == x)
-return sign * atantbl[83];
+{
+ /* Infinity. */
+ if (sign)
+ return -atantbl[83];
+ else
+ return atantbl[83];
+}
- x *= sign;
+ if (sign)
+ x = -x;
- if (x = 10.25) /* 10.25 */
+ if (x = 10.25)
{
k = 83;
t = -1.0/x;
@@ -196,5 +217,9 @@ atanl (long double x)
u = t * u * p / q + t;
/* arctan x = arctan u + arctan t */
- return sign * (atantbl[k] + u);
+ u = atantbl[k] + u;
+ if (sign)
+return (-u);
+ else
+return u;
}
Index: lib/logl.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/logl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -p -u -r1.1 logl.c
--- lib/logl.c 18 Feb 2003 17:05:23 - 1.1
+++ lib/logl.c 6 Oct 2004 19:59:05 -
@@ -46,7 +46,22 @@
#include mathl.h
-/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
+/* Copyright 2001 by Stephen L. Moshier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
+ any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ along with this program; see the file COPYING.
+ If not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */
/* log(1+x) = x - .5 x^2 + x^3 l(x)
-.0078125 = x = +.0078125
@@ -173,7 +188,8 @@ static const long double
long double
logl(long double x)
{
- long double z, y, w, u, t;
+ long double z, y, w;
+ long double u, t;
unsigned int m;
int k, e;
@@ -181,15 +197,19 @@ logl(long double x)
/* log(0) = -infinity. */
if (x == 0.0L)
-return -0.5L / 0.0L;
-
+{
+ return -0.5L / ZERO;
+}
/* log ( x 0 ) = NaN */
if (x 0.0L)
-return (x - x) / (x - x);
-
+{
+ return (x - x) / ZERO;
+}
/* log (infinity or NaN) */
if (x + x == x || x != x)
-return x + x;
+{
+ return x + x;
+}
/* Extract exponent and reduce domain to 0.703125 = u 1.40625 */
x = frexpl(x, e);
@@ -202,13 +222,13 @@ logl(long double x)
/* On this interval the table is not used due to cancellation error. */
if ((x = 1.0078125L) (x = 0.9921875L))
{
+ z = x - 1.0L;
k = 64;
t = 1.0L;
- z = x - 1.0L
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
To fix diacrit.h and diacrit.c I installed the obvious patch: 2004-10-06 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] * diacrit.c, diacrit.h: Add GPL notice. Index: diacrit.c === RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.c,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -p -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- diacrit.c 9 Aug 2004 21:11:34 - 1.4 +++ diacrit.c 6 Oct 2004 20:08:44 - 1.5 @@ -3,6 +3,21 @@ François Pinard [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1988. All this file is a temporary hack, waiting for locales in GNU. + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) + any later version. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + GNU General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + along with this program; see the file COPYING. + If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ */ #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H Index: diacrit.h === RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.h,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -p -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- diacrit.h 9 Aug 2004 21:11:34 - 1.4 +++ diacrit.h 6 Oct 2004 20:08:56 - 1.5 @@ -3,6 +3,21 @@ François Pinard [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1988. All this file is a temporary hack, waiting for locales in GNU. + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) + any later version. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + GNU General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + along with this program; see the file COPYING. + If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, + 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ */ extern const char diacrit_base[]; /* characters without diacritics */
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how does copyright law apply to auto-generated programs. Maybe debian-legal can offer advice on this. The answer is it depends, so let me give a few more details about the file in question, so that debian-legal knows what we're talking about. While I'm at it I'll also give you my informed layperson's opinion. You can get the contents of the file here: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/*checkout*/gnulib/gnulib/lib/lbrkprop.h?rev=HEADcontent-type=text/plain These contents are derived automatically from the Unicode Data Files, which are available from the Unicode Consortium under the Unicode Copyright http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. The program that generates lbrkprop.h is GPL'ed, but none of this GPL'ed code survives in lbrkprop.h. lbrkprop.h merely consists of a small wrapper (about 15 lines of simple code, which are unprotectible by copyright in my opinion) followed by data which are automatically derived from the Unicode Data Files. Since pure data are not protected by copyright, and since the wrapper is so small as to be uncopyrightable, I think the entire file is in the public domain. So, I think your concerns would be allayed by a brief notice to this effect. Something like this, perhaps? /* Generated automatically by gen-lbrkprop for Unicode 3.1.0. */ /* This file is in the public domain; it is software derived from the Unicode Data Files under the terms of the Unicode Copyright. */ Bruno Haible writes: It's ridiculous to put a copyright license on an automatically generated file if the generating program is available under GPL, since anyone could take that generating program, modify its printf() statements to emit a different license, and run the generating program. It's not always ridiculous to do such a thing. For example, Bison is GPLed, but Bison puts a copyright notice (the GPL with a special exception) into the source-code files that it generates automatically. Users are of course free to modify Bison to emit a different license, but if they redistribute the resulting output in violation of the Bison terms, they are still in violation of Bison's license. So I'm afraid that we have to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib / m4
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some m4 files are shared between GPLed and LGPLed packages, Yes, and for these files the more-permissive license makes sense. and it is frequent to copy m4 macros from one file to another (much more frequent than copying source code between .c files). The m4 files tend to be less-well-engineered than the source files, and so it's more common to copy m4 code rather than share it. But in principle, the stuff that is shared is either so large that it should be split off into a separate m4 file (with a more permissive license, if it needs to be shared among GPLed and LGPLed code) or so small that it's not really copyrightable. So I don't think this undermines the overall principle that GPLed modules should have GPLed m4 files. The purpose of the special exception clause is so that also non-GPLed packages can use autoconfiguration. Yes. However, that purpose doesn't apply to GPLed modules, as they can't be linked with non-GPLed packages. We want to encourage the use of configure scripts and of portable programs. That is an important goal, but (putting my RMS hat on :-) it is a secondary one for the GNU project. The main goal is freedom, not popularity. For example, the GNU project wants to encourage the use of GNU Emacs Lisp too; but Emacs's .el files are GPLed nonetheless. This is because, for .el files, the secondary goal of popularity doesn't outweigh the primary goal of keeping derivative works free. The question here is whether these m4 files are more like Emacs's .el files, or more like Autoconf's m4 files. It is not a trivial question: I don't see an easy decision either way. Being more conservative, I'd prefer to use the GPL if there's reasonable doubt, as we can always change it to a more-permissive license later. Another possibility is that we could ask RMS for his opinion. I see this special exception clause mostly as a clarification: Since *.m4 files are never linked into executables or libraries, they could also be used in non-LGPLed packages. But if the license doesn't explicitly say so, the authors of such packages will be afraid to use it. But for GPLed modules, this is intentional. We don't want people to use GPLed modules in non-GPLed applications.
Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the m4 files, I propose to add the standard notice to them: dnl Copyright (C) YEARS Free Software Foundation, Inc. dnl This file is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU dnl General Public License. As a special exception to the GNU General dnl Public License, this file may be distributed as part of a program dnl that contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, under dnl the same distribution terms as the rest of that program. For GPL'ed modules, I'd rather just use the GPL, as it's simpler and clearer. I don't see the point of having a special exception for the m4 files if the underlying code is GPLed. For LGPL'ed modules the situation is a bit murkier, and the above notice would be fine with me.
