Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 26 21:37, David Sastre Medina wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:49 AM, Jari Aalto wrote:
Neither OSI, nor FSF recommend use of public domain for Open Source
software.
I think you should total up the list of recommendations the FSF has
made over the years, and decide if you really want to be constrained
use only things that make FSF happy.
FSF recommends use of existing licences (GNU licences, Apache
...), likewise OSI:
We recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to
software you are releasing, rather than try to
waive copyright [= put into public domain] altogether.
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
CC0 is a bit more complicated than pure public domain.
... This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone
if the donated software causes harm (...) one [cannot] escape a
lawsuit just because his gift was only accidentally harmful.
CC0 contains a warranty disclaimer. (§4.b.)
If utmost free were the initial intention -- What was wrong with the
BSD[1] or MIT licenses, which are desinged to be Open Source software
licenses?
My point is that this is basically what you get, when you live
somewhere that doesn't allow public domain copyright disclaimer.
When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a
research. I concur with Corinna that the contents of the base-files package is
simple enough not to even worry about licensing, but as concern about
this reached the list[1], I simply looked for something a little bit more
serious
than the beer-ware[2] license and used it: I found the CC0 to be FSF[3]
approved,
and I thought it was an authoritative enough source of information.
I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I
definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the
files, because I'm only the mantainer here, and most of the code was
already there or has been contributed by others, so before I merge
those kindly sent pull-requests, I'd like to know if the copyright
attribution
As you state, the base files are a collective effort and everybody so
far was comfortable to leave the stuff in the public domain. It seems
wrong to imply that every contributor to this code would agree with the
move to pull the code out of PD. You could argue that the contributors
don't care, otherwise, why use a PD license? But that's not fair, is it?
in the headers could reference the cygwin project, something like:
( Copyright (c) 2010-2012 The cygwin project http://cygwin.com )
That's really not required, IMHO. The setup files in Fedora don't
have such a header either. The only copyright note is this text in
/usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
Setup package is public domain.
You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
without restrictions.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| When I first decided to use CC0, I admitedly didn't do too much of a
| research.
|
| I really don't mind to move to any of BSD-2 or GPLv3 if needed, but I
| definitely don't want to see my name in each and every one of the
| files, because I'm only the maintainer
The maintainer is always listed as a member in Copyright. You don't need to
worry about previous maintainers in this case. You'll be contacted, if
anyone wants to chime in; it's always a priviledge to attribute prior work
of someone.
License and Copyright are two different things. The selected license
(assume we use BSD or GPL), will grant anyone the right to modify the files
now and later. The Copyright is automatic, as it is always there when
someone creates something; e.g. when you touch the code. The Copyright line
only announces this explicitly; it is also important for traceability.
| ( Copyright (c) 2010-2012 The cygwin project http://cygwin.com )
|
| That's really not required, IMHO.
As Corinna said, the above is used for organization/Corporate/Entity
Licenses and not usually applicable for individual packages outside of
organization.
| The setup files in Fedora don't have such a header either. The only
| copyright note is this text in /usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
|
| Setup package is public domain.
|
| You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
| without restrictions.
Arguable not safe choice any more today. It may have been 20-30 years ago
in a different world without companies and people suing and without
software patents around the corners.
Public domain is a vague and probematic concept. It does not offer any
protection against liabilities. For this reason every instance (see
previous mails) recommend including a proper license in software files.
Software Freedom Law Center has a nice talk about public domain. If
someone has time, listen parts 19:30 - 24:10 at
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2010/mar/16/0x23/
I think the reason why pubic domain sounds seductive was put well in the
aftertalk of withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process:
Clark C. Evans: So, what makes Unlicense [failed attempt] and these
public domain statements alluring is that they serve as vehicles for
their authors make a statement about public policy. The MIT/BSD simply
don't make a public statement this way, and hence, they don't have that
sort of irresistable attraction.
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-February/000209.html
Jari
Re: LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
On Oct 27 16:46, Jari Aalto wrote:
On 2012-10-27 12:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| The setup files in Fedora don't have such a header either. The only
| copyright note is this text in /usr/share/doc/setup${vers}/COPYING:
|
| Setup package is public domain.
|
| You are free to use, copy, distribute or modify included files
| without restrictions.
Arguable not safe choice any more today. It may have been 20-30 years ago
in a different world without companies and people suing and without
software patents around the corners.
I asked our legal team for advice. Stay tuned.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
[RFU] w32api-runtime-3.0b_svn5431-2
Hi, Quick fix for iphlpapi.def exports having double or missing stdcall decorators. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Cygwin%20Snapshots/dist/w32api-runtime/setup.hint http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Cygwin%20Snapshots/dist/w32api-runtime/w32api-runtime-3.0b_svn5431-2-src.tar.bz2 http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Cygwin%20Snapshots/dist/w32api-runtime/w32api-runtime-3.0b_svn5431-2.tar.bz2 Should be OK to remove previous. Thanks. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [RFU] w32api-runtime-3.0b_svn5431-2
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 12:34 +0800, JonY wrote: Quick fix for iphlpapi.def exports having double or missing stdcall decorators. Should be OK to remove previous. Done and done. Yaakov
