Re: [License-discuss] Boilerplate license text for permissive licenses?
Possibly relevant/of interest to those following this thread, from a student of Daniel's: http://turingmachine.org/~dmg/temp/trevor_BSD_report_2012_12_23.pdf I have not read it all yet, but it looks useful for informing our discussion of how to clean up/further standardize the BSD/MIT/X11 variants, based on an analysis of 70K versions of the statements, as found in Debian. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, D M German d...@uvic.ca wrote: Gervase Markham twisted the bytes to say: Hi Gervase, Why don't you try the tool we developed. It is a bit hacky, but it will help you do what you are doing automatically. http://github.com/dmgerman/ninka If you run the tool, make sure it is a copy of the code. It will create, for each file you specify in its command line (I recommend you use xargs to run it) several files. The ones you are looking for are: *license, *.senttok and *.goodsent they will abstract the information you are looking for. As I mentioned in the previous message, what is the code you are looking at? I can run the tool myself and give you the resulting data. -daniel Gervase On 26/11/12 23:44, Luis Villa wrote: I wonder if there is an easy way to visualize the various changes you have in your data set, to see where people agreed/disagreed/edited, outside the obvious changes. Daniel German, cc'd, may have already tackled this, or have other ideas along these lines. Gervase I don't have an automated way. I gave myself 10 minutes to do it by Gervase hand, and the results are as follows: Gervase ORGANIZATION: Gervase * the author Gervase * the above-listed copyright holder(s) Gervase * Yahoo! Inc., followed by nor the names of YUI's contributors Gervase * the copyright holder Gervase * Google Gervase * the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Gervase * the University Gervase * Google Inc. Gervase * the Xiph.org Foundation nor Pinknoise Productions Ltd Gervase * TransGaming Inc., Google Inc., 3DLabs Inc. Ltd., Gervase * the David Beazley or Dabeaz LLC (!) Gervase * the Jython Developers Gervase * KTH Gervase * The Android Open Source Project Gervase * Rewording: The names of the authors may not be used to endorse... Gervase * Rewording: The names of the author may not be used to endorse... Gervase * David Young Gervase * the project Gervase * Cisco Systems, Inc. Gervase * the libjpeg-turbo Project Gervase * the Motorola, Inc. (!) Gervase * Adobe Systems, Network Resonance Gervase * Parakey Inc Gervase * Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) Gervase * the copyright holders Gervase * Network Resonance, Inc. Gervase * the company Gervase * Redis Gervase * Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) or The Mozilla Foundation (Mozilla) Gervase * The NetBSD Foundation Gervase * the psutil authors Gervase * the Institute Gervase * the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. Gervase * the Cisco Systems, Inc. (!) Gervase * the author(s) Gervase * the Xiph.org Foundation Gervase ... and several more. Gervase Disclaimer section: Gervase Much less variation here, the first two being by far the most common: Gervase * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * THE AUTHOR Gervase * THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * Google Inc. Gervase * KTH AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * The Android Open Source Project Gervase * THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * DAVID YOUNG Gervase * THE PROJECT AND CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * APPLE AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. Gervase * APPLE, MOZILLA AND THEIR CONTRIBUTORS Gervase * THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC Gervase * THE INSTITUTE AND CONTRIBUTORS Gervase As far as I can tell, other than the substitution of names on Gervase occasion, the disclaimer is otherwise identical. And there is very Gervase little variation in the other text too. Gervase Bullets: Gervase * None Gervase * 1. Gervase * a) Gervase * - Gervase * * Gervase * In one case, 1), 2) and nothing! Gervase * In another, 1), 2) and -! Gervase * In another, nothing, nothing and -! Gervase * In another, all the paras are run together Gervase Numbers seem to be the most common. Gervase Gerv -- Daniel M. German An intellectual is someone whose Albert Camus - mind watches itself. http://turingmachine.org/ http://silvernegative.com/ dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca replace (at) with @ and (dot) with . ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Boilerplate license text for permissive licenses?
On 27/11/12 19:28, D M German wrote: Why don't you try the tool we developed. It is a bit hacky, but it will help you do what you are doing automatically. http://github.com/dmgerman/ninka Hi dmg, I did come across ninka in my research, and tried it out, but I couldn't really get it to do the right thing for me. :-| And it left loads of temporary files all over the place. As I mentioned in the previous message, what is the code you are looking at? I can run the tool myself and give you the resulting data. Well, it's the B2G tree, but with some bits excluded because they are test code and because we aren't shipping them. Following these instructions up to just before the point where you actually run a build command (build.sh) will get the code for you. Beware, it's big. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Boot_to_Gecko/Preparing_for_your_first_B2G_build Running your tool over that would give a first approximation. But, AIUI, your tool doesn't do the detecting licenses which are 'the same' and copyright amalgamation bits which my tool now does. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Boilerplate license text for permissive licenses?
Hi Larry, On 27/11/12 04:57, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Consider the hapless corporate attorney who is forced to review hundreds of proprietary software licenses when authorizing the distribution or sale/purchase of his company's software products. Each of those proprietary licenses may contain restrictions on transfer; unique indemnity and warranty provisions; attribution requirements or prohibitions; etc. My sympathy for such hapless individuals is real, albeit tempered by the fact that as a reward for taking on such onerous work they probably earn at least triple what I do ;-P But once you've done your variant-gathering, will you recommend that everyone else do the same for their own open source software as Mozilla will do for Firefox OS? That's a lot of work to recommend for others to do. Fortunately, I have a script which can analyse a source tree and produce the necessary output for inclusion with software. That would seem to be a waste of time considering the infinitesimally tiny risk that one of those variant licensors would sue you for breach for taking the easy way out -- such as: This software includes contributions under one or more variants of the official BSD and MIT license versions published at www.opensource.org. Mozilla has chosen not to publish those individual variant licenses along with this distribution, although we are disclosing its source code as those licenses require. That's an interesting recommendation, although one that (as far as I know) has never been taken up by any distributor of aggregated software. I am certainly not competent to judge whether, for example, the addition of an extra word to the disclaimer has legal effect or not, and if by instead referencing a license with slightly different wording we might upset someone who included that word for a reason. Also, these licenses don't require disclosure of source code. software. Those licensors can't sue you anyway unless they register their copyrights, which is unlikely to have happened for such works. Damages in such a lawsuit would be minimal at worst. For a company that can afford to swat away any such nuisance lawsuits, taking this easy way out may be worth the risk, unless your lawyer tells you that no risk is ever worth taking. Mozilla ignores clear provisions of open source licenses; says 'well, we probably won't get sued, so who cares?'. A great headline for Slashdot. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Boilerplate license text for permissive licenses?
On 26/11/12 23:44, Luis Villa wrote: I wonder if there is an easy way to visualize the various changes you have in your data set, to see where people agreed/disagreed/edited, outside the obvious changes. Daniel German, cc'd, may have already tackled this, or have other ideas along these lines. I don't have an automated way. I gave myself 10 minutes to do it by hand, and the results are as follows: ORGANIZATION: * the author * the above-listed copyright holder(s) * Yahoo! Inc., followed by nor the names of YUI's contributors * the copyright holder * Google * the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. * the University * Google Inc. * the Xiph.org Foundation nor Pinknoise Productions Ltd * TransGaming Inc., Google Inc., 3DLabs Inc. Ltd., * the David Beazley or Dabeaz LLC (!) * the Jython Developers * KTH * The Android Open Source Project * Rewording: The names of the authors may not be used to endorse... * Rewording: The names of the author may not be used to endorse... * David Young * the project * Cisco Systems, Inc. * the libjpeg-turbo Project * the Motorola, Inc. (!) * Adobe Systems, Network Resonance * Parakey Inc * Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) * the copyright holders * Network Resonance, Inc. * the company * Redis * Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) or The Mozilla Foundation (Mozilla) * The NetBSD Foundation * the psutil authors * the Institute * the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. * the Cisco Systems, Inc. (!) * the author(s) * the Xiph.org Foundation ... and several more. Disclaimer section: Much less variation here, the first two being by far the most common: * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * THE AUTHOR * THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS * Google Inc. * KTH AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS * The Android Open Source Project * THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS * DAVID YOUNG * THE PROJECT AND CONTRIBUTORS * APPLE AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. * APPLE, MOZILLA AND THEIR CONTRIBUTORS * THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC * THE INSTITUTE AND CONTRIBUTORS As far as I can tell, other than the substitution of names on occasion, the disclaimer is otherwise identical. And there is very little variation in the other text too. Bullets: * None * 1. * a) * - * * * In one case, 1), 2) and nothing! * In another, 1), 2) and -! * In another, nothing, nothing and -! * In another, all the paras are run together Numbers seem to be the most common. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Boilerplate license text for permissive licenses?
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Matthew Flaschen wrote: But I don't see how you can remove the placeholder from BSD 3-Clause while still having it be the same license. The original says, Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors You have to put something in place of University. It commonly has name of the author I also had the fun scripting to parse out the different licenses (and convert to a LaTeX format for 68 printed pages) for a product I sell. It has over 100 different BSD and MIT licenses and 26 advertising clauses This product includes software developed ... I just realized that I listed different cases (like author versus Author) as different licenses too, but I think that is only a few. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
