Re: License of test data?

[glob]

mhoye wrote:

Does "just do it" imply that it's now OK to import that stuff without

an analog of the previous r+ from Gerv?
I'm putting together a licensing runbook with Legal's help, and the 
aim of that will be getting us to that point. As well, Glob is 
building some logic into Phabricator to automate a bunch of this stuff 
on ingest as well.
to clarify the bits i'm working on aren't integrated with phabricator; 
it's a framework for standardising and automating how we vendor in code, 
and part of that is ensuring a license is specified and is one that we 
permit.  it will exist as a new mach command.


integration with build, review, and/or ci systems to automate license 
validation will be possible once this lands, but isn't part of the 
initial scope.



-glob

--
glob — engineering workflow — moz://a

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[mhoye]

On 2018-05-18 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:31 PM, mhoye  wrote:

Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we
have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already.

Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" set,
basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 3.0, GPL
3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.

Does "just do it" imply that it's now OK to import that stuff without
an analog of the previous r+ from Gerv?


I'm putting together a licensing runbook with Legal's help, and the aim 
of that will be getting us to that point. As well, Glob is building some 
logic into Phabricator to automate a bunch of this stuff on ingest as 
well. Between those two things, the end goal will be both a document and 
a documented process that will let us import stuff that's already 
licensed acceptably without a round trip through legal or, and god help 
us all if I ever become a rate-limiting factor on dev velocity here, me.


For right now, though, I think the right thing is to assume that my 
understanding is incomplete, file the licensing bug, get the r+. I'll do 
my best to get through them as soon as I see them.


- mhoye


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[Henri Sivonen]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:31 PM, mhoye  wrote:
> Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we
> have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already.
>
> Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" set,
> basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 3.0, GPL
> 3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.

Does "just do it" imply that it's now OK to import that stuff without
an analog of the previous r+ from Gerv?

> For anything not on that list a legal bug is def. the next step.

For test files, i.e. stuff that doesn't get linked into libxul, we
also have precedent for the MPL-incompatible CC-by and CC-by-sa. I
hope we can add these to the above list.

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Mike Hommey  wrote:
> The above list is for tests. For things that go in Firefox, it's more
> complicated. LGPL have requirements that makes us have to put all LGPL
> libraries in a separate dynamic library (liblgpllibs), and GPL can't be
> used at all.

For stuff that goes into Firefox, MIT and BSD (and, I'm guessing,
Apache with NOTICE file) involve editing
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/content/license.html
, too.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:31:43PM -0400, mhoye wrote:
> On 2018-04-24 10:36 AM, mhoye wrote:
> > On 2018-04-24 10:24 AM, David Teller wrote:
> > > What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the
> > > frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an
> > > MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in
> > > the test repo, right?
> > 
> > I think that this is my question to answer now; I've taken on licensing
> > questions in Gerv's absence. I'm new to this part of the job, so it'll
> > take me a day or two to get the answer; I'll come back to this thread
> > when I have it.
> 
> Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we
> have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already.
> 
> Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" set,
> basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 3.0, GPL
> 3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.

The above list is for tests. For things that go in Firefox, it's more
complicated. LGPL have requirements that makes us have to put all LGPL
libraries in a separate dynamic library (liblgpllibs), and GPL can't be
used at all.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[mhoye]

On 2018-04-24 10:36 AM, mhoye wrote:

On 2018-04-24 10:24 AM, David Teller wrote:

What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the
frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an
MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in
the test repo, right?


I think that this is my question to answer now; I've taken on 
licensing questions in Gerv's absence. I'm new to this part of the 
job, so it'll take me a day or two to get the answer; I'll come back 
to this thread when I have it.


Well, more than a day or two. The MIT license is fine to include, and we 
have a pile of MIT-licensed code in-tree already.


Other already-in-tree MPL-2.0 compatible licenses - the "just do it" 
set, basically - include Apache 2.0, BSD 2- and 3-clause, LGPL 2.1 and 
3.0, GPL 3.0 and the Unicode Consortium's ICU.


We have a handful of oddballs in various places though I think we can 
cull some of them out - the Anti-Grain-Geometry stuff has recently been 
relicensed under the GPL, for example.


For anything not on that list a legal bug is def. the next step.

- mhoye
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[mhoye]

On 2018-04-24 10:24 AM, David Teller wrote:

Ideally, I'd like to put a few well-known frameworks in jsapi tests, to
be used as data for SpiderMonkey integration tests.

What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the
frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an
MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in
the test repo, right?


I think that this is my question to answer now; I've taken on licensing 
questions in Gerv's absence. I'm new to this part of the job, so it'll 
take me a day or two to get the answer; I'll come back to this thread 
when I have it.



- mhoye
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: License of test data?

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM, David Teller  wrote:
> Ideally, I'd like to put a few well-known frameworks in jsapi tests, to
> be used as data for SpiderMonkey integration tests.
>
> What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the
> frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an
> MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in
> the test repo, right?

Per https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/license-policy/ it sounds like
you would need to file a licensing bug, even if it's MPL-compatible,
because it's Third Party Code.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

License of test data?

[David Teller]

Ideally, I'd like to put a few well-known frameworks in jsapi tests, to
be used as data for SpiderMonkey integration tests.

What's our policy for this? Are there any restrictions? All the
frameworks I currently have at hand are have either an MIT- or an
MIT-like license, so in theory, we need to copy the license somewhere in
the test repo, right?

Cheers,
 David
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform