On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:52 AM Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 4:04 AM Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca > <mailto:rmack...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote: > >>Warner Losh wrote: > >>>On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 7:25 PM Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca > <mailto:rmack...@uoguelph.ca><mailto:rmack...@uoguelph.ca<mailto: > rmack...@uoguelph.ca>>> wrote: > >>>>I'll admit I've hesitated to ask this for a long time, but I guess I > have to;-) > >>>>I've created two daemons for NFS-over-TLS, using the code in > >>>>/usr/src/usr.sbin/gssd/gssd.c as a starting point. > >>>>--> As such, I left the copyright notice from this file on the two > files. > >>>> (As you can see, it is a 2 clause FreeBSD one, so the terms > aren't > >>>> an issue.) > >>>> > >>>>What I am wondering is if I should be adding my name to it as an > >>>>additional author or something like that? > >>>>(I don't care, but it does seem a little weird that the copyright is > held > >>>> by Isilon Inc, since I have no connection to them.) > >>> > >>>Likely. If you changed a substantial amount, then yes. The rule of > thumb is >50% > >>> is no brainer yes. Smaller percentages require more nuanced judgement > as to whether the changes are substantial enough to create a new work. > Chances are > >>> quite good you fall into one of those categories. Also, if you have > replaced more > >>>than ~90% chances are good no original work remains. Again, a judgement > call. > >>>There are more technical legal guidelines, but that would require a > lawyer. > >>> > >>>My hunch is that unless this is something far more trivial than I then > I'd add the > >>> notice, but retaining the old. > >>Well, I'd guess it's somewhere in the 50->90% category. > >>Would just adding a comment below the current copyright notice like: > >>/* > >> * Extensively modified from /usr/src/usr.sbin/gssd.c for RPC-over-TLS > >> * by Rick Macklem. > >> */ > >>be sufficient for the project, or should I put a second copyright notice > >>on it with my name on it? (This will seem odd, since it will have the > same > >>terms as the extant one, but if that is what is appropriate for the > project..) > >> > >>It is my understanding (I'm obviously not a lawyer, clearly indicated by > the > >>size of my bank account;-) that a copyright notice can only be changed by > >>the holder (or with their express permission), but an additional > copyright > >>notice can be attached to the work to cover the re-write. > >>Is this correct? (All amateur lawyers, feel free to respond;-) > >> > >>Thanks for your comments, rick > >> > >>>Warnet > >> > [copyright comment snipped] > >My opinion is as follows : > > > >At the top of the related sources I would include a message ( > approximately ) as >follows : > > I believe for FreeBSD this would need to be after the main copyright > notice, > but that is trivial, I think? > > > A "Copyright owner additions Style Guide" may be prepared by the FreeBSD Project to make a common application pattern for such inclusions . A commonly accepted and applied style is the best over time . > >After svn ( or git ) modification number(s) ... ( including ) I have > made substantial ( or significant ) modifications ( or improvements ) . > >The copyright of these modifications with the present license listed > below are >belong to > > > >Rick Macklem , starting from date ..... > > ( Rick Macklem ... an approximately fixed address ... ) > Does anyone know if there are examples of this in other major open > source projects? > > I would be very shy of creating a notice that is not exactly what other > FreeBSD files have in them. For one thing, is referring to license terms > in another > copyright notice "standard practice"? > > I'll admit that, unless there are examples of this elsewhere in the FreeBSD > source tree (or at least in other major open source projects), I would not > be > comfortable doing this. > > Maybe I'll try asking this question... > Is there a concern that the copyright notice that is on gssd.c could be > considered > "not valid" due to the extensive changes made to the code by me? > (If the answer to that is "no", then I don't see that anything needs to be > done, > since the notice includes reasonable terms as already used elsewhere in > FreeBSD. > I have no interest in being a copyright holder for this unless the > copyright can > be invalidated.) > Put another way, "Is there a concern that the extensive changes would > allow the > copyright notice be replaced by something like a GPL ?". > > rick, who would rather just lease the notice alone > > Please consider zLib License : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License zlib License Inclusion of such modification information into modified sources is compulsory . One point is obvious : Modifications into a previously copyrighted source ( work ) either does NOT invalidate the previous copyright of the work or can NOT change its license . New additions may be included by a separate license , for example GPL , but the new license is applicable only to the NEW additions . I will not remember such an example , but , surely I can say that I am seeing many sources with such modification licenses , because I am tracking a large number of software repositories or I am encountering such sources during my open source software searches . No one is obliged to accept or use such sources because any one may use/start original licensed sources . My suggestion to include SVN ( or GIT ) number(s) is to eliminate searches to find copyright affected first copy . > > Each contributor may append such notifications listed on the topmost part . > When a person reads such sources , she/he very easily understands its > modification and copyright status without any doubt . > > > Mehmet Erol Sanliturk > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
