On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:49 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 21/2/20 3:20 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:58 AM Thomas Doerfler > > <thomas.doerf...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I just want to speak up here. I talked with Sebastian today and I really > >> tend to keep the license text in each file. > >> > >> Rational: > >> > >> - With the BSD license, anyone can pick any file from the RTEMS repo and > >> use/modify it in any project (and this is fine). The original authors > >> (and their copyright) are listed in the file, but the only pointer to > >> the legal part is the "SPDX identifier". I am not sure whether this is a > >> legally binding "tag" and whether this tag is clear to any user. > >> > >> - Strictly seen, it is not even forbidden to remove the "SPDX > >> identifier", because it is not part of the BSD-2-clause-license, it's > >> just a pointer to it. In the end we might result in code drifting around > >> without license information, which we all do not want to see. > >> > > This is a valid point. I also have no desire to be a lawyer. > > > > My intuition here is that, even without any licensing information at > > all in individual files, one can still apply a single license to an > > entire repository, e.g., BSD or GPL. For historical reasons, and > > similar arguments as you've made, BSD-style licenses have tended to be > > copy-pasted to individual files to make them easier to excerpt. We > > don't have license uniformity, so we do need to individually specify > > which license(s) apply to each file. > > This makes sense. The simplified BSD license states ... > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > I do not see how we can centralise this and have the "above copyright" work? > Also the SPDX site here ... > > https://spdx.org/ids-how > > ... under the heading "Standard license headers" states ... > > When a license defines a recommended notice to attach to files > under that license (sometimes called a "standard header"), the SPDX > project recommends that the standard header be included in the files, > in addition to an SPDX ID. > > My reading of this means we should include the license in the source. > > We need to consider compliance and machine auditing of the source. The SPDX > tag > is important. Maybe ... > > /* > * SPDX tag suff > */ > /* > * Copyright stuff > * > * 2-Clause BSD license > */ >
This is a good point. Probably it is good to follow the SPDX advice on usage, and keep the "standard header" boilerplate intact. > > Linux follows a similar philosophy as Sebastian suggests. I think we > > can also follow Linux in this regards. > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html > > > > I would suggest we follow their approach to self-document the licenses > > centrally. I suspect the risk of someone using code without adhering > > to the license is no greater. Probably they have a higher risk > > exposure than we do! > > I agree with the comments in the Linux license rules text about license text > in > files making it harder to check for compliance. > > Chris > > > > >> As you all know I am not a lawyer (and don't want to be), but my gut > >> say's the extra lines in the top of each file are worth their storage. > >> And anybody opening a RTEMS source file (even when it has been taken to > >> a different project) should see what he has. > >> > >> --------- > >> > >> If you have different reasons to replace the header and just leave the > >> identifier I a will go with it and it's fine for me. But my tendency > >> is... leave it in. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Thomas. > >> > >> Am 20.02.20 um 08:30 schrieb Sebastian Huber: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> On 18/02/2020 16:58, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >>>>>>> I suggest to use a master COPYING file and use file headers without > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> full license text. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2018-December/024198.html > >>>>>> It would be nice to get some feedback here. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm generally ok with just the spdx and copyright statements. > >>>>> > >>>> I'm also fine with the master COPYING, spdx-tag, and individual > >>>> copyrights in files. > >>>> > >>>> I should make a note to take a pass over "my" files to relicense them. > >>>> Does anyone have any script/tools for making that easy? > >>> > >>> I talked with Thomas and he is not in favour of a removal of the licence > >>> text. Not everyone knows what an SPDX-Licence-Identifier is and that > >>> this means the file is covered by the reference license. The > >>> BSD-2-Clause license text is quite clear and not long. For us it is > >>> important that it is very clear that our contributions are without > >>> warranties and so on. This information should be also clear if files are > >>> transferred out of the RTEMS context to other projects. > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> -------------------------------------------- > >> embedded brains GmbH > >> Thomas Doerfler > >> Dornierstr. 4 > >> D-82178 Puchheim > >> Germany > >> email: thomas.doerf...@embedded-brains.de > >> Phone: +49-89-18 94 741-12 > >> Fax: +49-89-18 94 741-09 > >> PGP: Public key available on request. > >> For our privacy statement, see > >> https://embedded-brains.de/en/data-privacy-statement/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@rtems.org > >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@rtems.org > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel