Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
Hi everyone, It's been about a week since I emailed-out information I'd received from the lawyers about dual-licensing code examples. To date I've received no responses, so I'm going to be a cheerful optimist here and hope that people are generally happy with the text as written. I'd like to keep the ball rolling on this, so please let me know if you have any comments or questions. A copy of my email from the 26th including the information from the lawyers is quoted below. Thanks, -- Robinson On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Robinson Tryon > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Philip Olson wrote: >>> >>> I avoid the topic of licenses whenever possible but let's make a decision. >>> It feels like most would prefer dual licensing for code snippets (despite >>> GPL and PHP not getting along all that well, ever) so let's do that. >>> Does someone here have a lawyer friend who will look over the proposed >>> change? >> >> Sure, I'm happy to take point on that. I'll pass along the information >> from this thread and let the list know as soon as I hear something >> back from the lawyers. >> > > Hi guys, > > I've heard back from the lawyers and received some very helpful > information about dual-licensing the documentation and dealing with > copyright assignment. (General disclaimer: IANAL, and this advice > should be construed as nothing more than my advice) > > Based on my conversations, here's a licensing paragraph that can be > used on the PHP licensing page (and on individual pages of the manual, > if desired): > > "The PHP manual is Copyright (C) the PHP Documentation Group, and is > released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. All > example code in the documentation or freely submitted by the public in > "user notes" is additionally licensed under the New BSD License." > > Regarding copyright assignment, it appears that the law is quite > strict about the matter, requiring actual signatures from individuals > to complete the transfer. That kind of requirement seems like enough > hassle than it might discourage people from contributing user notes, > which is definitely something that we all want to avoid. But don't get > discouraged yet! Based on what I've heard from the lawyers, we don't > necessarily need copyright assignment to include user notes in the > manual. Instead of requiring assignment, we can just require a license > from the individual to the PHP Documentation Group. > > Here's a draft of how the ToS could read: > > "To improve the PHP Manual, information from user notes may be > periodically incorporated into the primary documentation. By > submitting a user note you attest that all contributions are your own > and grant the PHP Documentation Group a license to use the content of > the user note in the documentation under the same terms as the primary > documentation, as well as the right to re-license the content should > the license of the PHP Manual change. Content that violates any > copyrights will be deleted. See the Licensing Page for details." > > > On a related note, is there any further clarification about who > comprises "The PHP Documentation Group" ? It might be helpful to get > that sorted out at the same time as the dual-licensing of the > documentation, particularly as the documentation license specifically > refers to the Group, and they appear to hold the role of shepherds of > the manual, user notes, and license. > > > Cheers, > -- Robinson >
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Philip Olson wrote: >> >> I avoid the topic of licenses whenever possible but let's make a decision. >> It feels like most would prefer dual licensing for code snippets (despite >> GPL and PHP not getting along all that well, ever) so let's do that. >> Does someone here have a lawyer friend who will look over the proposed >> change? > > Sure, I'm happy to take point on that. I'll pass along the information > from this thread and let the list know as soon as I hear something > back from the lawyers. > Hi guys, I've heard back from the lawyers and received some very helpful information about dual-licensing the documentation and dealing with copyright assignment. (General disclaimer: IANAL, and this advice should be construed as nothing more than my advice) Based on my conversations, here's a licensing paragraph that can be used on the PHP licensing page (and on individual pages of the manual, if desired): "The PHP manual is Copyright (C) the PHP Documentation Group, and is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. All example code in the documentation or freely submitted by the public in "user notes" is additionally licensed under the New BSD License." Regarding copyright assignment, it appears that the law is quite strict about the matter, requiring actual signatures from individuals to complete the transfer. That kind of requirement seems like enough hassle than it might discourage people from contributing user notes, which is definitely something that we all want to avoid. But don't get discouraged yet! Based on what I've heard from the lawyers, we don't necessarily need copyright assignment to include user notes in the manual. Instead of requiring assignment, we can just require a license from the individual to the PHP Documentation Group. Here's a draft of how the ToS could read: "To improve the PHP Manual, information from user notes may be periodically incorporated into the primary documentation. By submitting a user note you attest that all contributions are your own and grant the PHP Documentation Group a license to use the content of the user note in the documentation under the same terms as the primary documentation, as well as the right to re-license the content should the license of the PHP Manual change. Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. See the Licensing Page for details." On a related note, is there any further clarification about who comprises "The PHP Documentation Group" ? It might be helpful to get that sorted out at the same time as the dual-licensing of the documentation, particularly as the documentation license specifically refers to the Group, and they appear to hold the role of shepherds of the manual, user notes, and license. Cheers, -- Robinson
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Christopher Jones
wrote:
>
> I wwould NOT like to see dual licensing. Aside from any likely
> legal issues
I think we're all interested in any potential legal issues that
licensing changes could bring. What additional legal issues would dual
(disjunctive) licensing pose ?
> it introduces unwarranted complexity with existing
> and new documentation.
Based on what I've read in previous emails in this thread, the
copyright of the manual and of all user-contributed code resets with a
single entity. If we take that as fact, then I see no legal hurdle to
us treating new and existing documentation separately.
Moving from a single license to a dual-licensing model does introduce
a small amount of complexity ('you may choose license A or B', instead
of just 'license A'), but I think that the overall benefits
(supporting code reuse, eschewing legal ambiguity, community
education, etc...) more than outweigh the addition of a tiny amount of
complexity to the license declaration.
--R
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Philip Olson wrote: > > I avoid the topic of licenses whenever possible but let's make a decision. It > feels like most would prefer dual licensing for code snippets (despite GPL > and PHP not getting along all that well, ever) so let's do that. Okay. > Does someone here have a lawyer friend who will look over the proposed change? > > Regards, > Philip Sure, I'm happy to take point on that. I'll pass along the information from this thread and let the list know as soon as I hear something back from the lawyers. Thanks, -- Robinson
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Daniel Brown wrote: > I'm of the opinion that we should license all > machine-interpretable examples (i.e. - "code snippets") in both the > official documentation usage examples and user-submitted examples > alike - including those from the mailing lists and archives - under > either the MIT or New BSD license, so it was good to see someone else > mention those two explicitly. A simple ratification to the license > information pages would suffice. Exempli gratia: > > "The PHP manual text and user-submitted comments are released > under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, Copyright (C) the > PHP Documentation Group, with the exception of machine code regions > (AKA - "code snippets") in the documentation or freely submitted by > the public, which is licensed under [MIT/NBSD]." As suggested in the DFSG FAQ, I think that a dual-licensing scheme would provide the most clarity and flexibility for the code embedded in the documentation. (I'd also suggest putting the copyright notice before the license name, otherwise it's unclear whether it is the manual or the CC license that is copyright by the PHP Doc Group!) To riff off of your example: "The PHP manual is Copyright (C) the PHP Documentation Group, and is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The machine code regions (AKA - "code snippets") in the documentation or freely submitted by the public, are also licensed under the [MIT/NBSD]." I'm sure that there's a good way to tighten up the language about the "example code"/"code snippets" a bit. I'm sure we could find a lawyer or two to review the text, if it would be helpful. > That said, in all technicality, anything presently in existence on > the site is licensed under the CC-BY license, plain and simple. It > would not be difficult to prove it in court, as there are literally > thousands of third-party points of reference as to what code was > present during the Attribution licensing. It's not an interpretable, > subjective case - it's black-and-white reality. Exhibit A existed at > Date-And-Time B, whereby it was legally restricted under License C. Right, that's the starting point. I assume that the PHP Doc Group has copyright to all of the non-user-submitted code examples, so changing those over would just involve a (hopefully not too arduous) internal process. As for user-submitted code, I assume that the submission form does (or could easily) include a note about licensing or assigning copyright. If the Doc Group already has a sufficiently broad license to the existing content, as has been suggested in other emails, then relicensing these components should be pretty straightforward. > One argument could exist, though, in the case that a user submits > a code snippet also licensed under the CC-BY license. This could > create a legal paradox This is a good reason to put a clearly-worded notice on the submission page. Here's the text that Wikipedia puts on their edit pages: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted...You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." Basically you have to trust your contributors to actually hold copyright to their submissions, or to have knowledge that they are under a sufficiently permissive license (i.e. one that's CC-BY and NBSD/MIT -compatible) > It is for this reason I remove any > and all notes mentioning licensure in any form. Further, because all > Copyright is transferred by agreement from the submitter - of his/her > own free accord - during the submission process, any claims to > Copyright of any submission or portion thereof is also removed > immediately upon discovery. Based on this it looks like the PHP Doc group holds the copyright to all of the material, so there's no barrier on that front to dual-licensing. --R
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Brandon Savage wrote: > > The CC-BY license states [...some things...] > ... > This is the provision from which I derived that fair use avoids infringement > even if credit is not given. (IANAL) but it's entirely possible that a Fair Use defense would be successful against claims of copyright infringement... > > That being said, if it is the opinion of the group that the CC-BY combined > with the provisions of fair use do not protect someone who uses the > snippets, then they simply need to give credit. ...that being said, I'm not sure that even the group's opinion is strong enough to provide sufficient legal protection for "snippets," (and how long is a snippet, anyhow?). What I mean is, even if The PHP Documentation Group makes a formal statement that in their opinion the CC-BY license on the manual allows people to make use of example code as long as they just provide attribution, that formal statement might not hold up in court. > FWIW I don't see a significant problem here with giving credit. A line in a > README file that says "Some snippets adapted from documentation provided by > The PHP Documentation Group" would solve the issue entirely. The specific > names of the individuals that constitute the PHP Documentation Group are > irrelevant; the license says "The PHP Documentation Group" is who owns the > copyright, so that's who gets the credit. That level of attribution sounds compatible with just about every license out there. If The PHP Doc Group believes that the CC-BY provides a framework under which a simple attribution line like that is sufficient, then I suggest they grease the wheels and calm the lawyers by clarifying it with an explicit, very permissive license like the New BSD or MIT. > I still don't see a significant issue or a reason to change our licensing. > Furthermore, I don't see why we should change our license to help out the > GPL folks, especially when they've shown considerable disregard for the > rights of others in the software community, most recently in the fight over > Wordpress themes. So PHP should help out the GPL community, but the GPL > community screws the PHP community? I think not. I think that the "PHP community" and "GPL community" share a number of important goals, such as the promotion of FOSS, the empowerment of users with powerful tools that they can modify and run themselves, and a drive to write the best software available. If one of the primary goals of the PHP community is to promote the use of PHP, then I would suggest that the leaders make it as easy as possible for people to start programming in the language, even if means giving people the flexibility to write new code and re-use example code under the GPL or a proprietary license. --R
Re: [PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > > Actually, when adding a use contributor note the note becomes > 'property of the PHP Documentation Group' > > See http://no.php.net/manual/add-note.php > "This means that any note submitted here becomes the property of the > PHP Documentation Group and will be available under the same license > as the documentation." Ah, that's good to know! > We did recently changed the manual license to CC-BY, and I must admit > I didn't consider the consequences that had on the code snippets. > > I'm also unsure how we can fix that. Add a note "all code examples are > BSD licensed" clause somewhere? There's a DFSG (draft) FAQ that provides some good insight on the topic: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#docs Q: I'm writing documentation to accompany a free program. What license should I use for this documentation? A: We strongly suggest you use the same license as used for the program. Then it will be possible to take code and put it into the documentation, and vice versa. If you would like to grant some extra freedoms for the documentation not granted for the remainder of the software package (eg freedom to distribute as a paper manual without corresponding document source) we recommend you use a dual license: one of which grants these extra freedoms, and the other the same license as the program. Given that the PHP License isn't compatible with the GPL, then yes, I think choosing a permissive license like the New BSD License is an appropriate choice. It shouldn't take too long to fix this -- I'd just add a note in the documentation section of the PHP license page along the lines of "All example code in the PHP manual, including user notes, are additionally available under the terms of the New BSD License," and then link to a local copy of the New (i.e. the 3-clause) BSD License. I'm sure that people will re-use code from the manual with or without an explicit license to it, but it makes a lot of sense to formalize the whole thing, keeping our codebases and licenses all nice and tidy. Cheers, --R
[PHP-DOC] License for code examples in the PHP manual?
Hi, Based on the license page (http://www.php.net/license/), the PHP Manual appears to only be available under the terms of the CC-BY 3.0 license. Unfortunately for people wishing to use the code examples in the manual in their code, it appears that the CC-BY license is incompatible with several FOSS licenses, including the GPL. Is there any chance that the code examples in the manual are also available under a different license as well? Thanks, -- Robinson
