Thanks Bram. Much appreciated. I’ll reach out to Charles. > On 31 Dec 2021, at 23:13, Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net> wrote: > > > Ben Jackson wrote: > >> I know it’s kind of tedious, but I have question about the vim license >> (:help license) specifically relating to the runtime files. > > Yes, copyright issues can be very complicated and tedious. At least, > when you listen to a lawyer and try to do exactly the right thing. And > find out the laws of what country actually applies (every country has > it's own laws, there is no such thing as international copyright). > > The opposite is to assume nobody will complain, just copy stuff and hope > you don't get blamed. > >> I have made a derivative work of the xxd.vim syntax file as >> distributed by vim and as authored by Charles Campbell. This is to be >> distributed as part of a vim plugin (Vimspector) that is itself >> licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. By derivative work here I mean >> that I copied it, made some relatively minor changes, and applied it >> to a different filetype. >> >> Although Charles doesn’t specify, I’m assuming that the license of the >> original xxd.vim is the same as that of vim (i.e. that in :help >> license). Unfortunately, I wasn’t sure from that exactly what the >> situation was for derivative works, as the license speaks mostly about >> full copies of vim rather than “parts” such as the runtime files. > > The rule is that if copyright is not specified, a work is copyrighted > by default (in nearly all countries). And, weird as the name my suggest > the opposite, that means you don't have the right to copy. Not at all > (with very few exceptions). > >> So in short the questions are: >> >> 1) Are the runtime files licensed in the same way as Vim proper ? >> 2) If so, what are the license restrictions on creating derivative >> works of runtime files? > > Well, although the file itself doesn't mention licencing rules, it is > part of the Vim distribution, so you can assume the Vim license applies. > If the author would not wanted that, it would be mentioned somewhere. > > AFAIK Apache 2 is a good license and doesn't conflict with the Vim > license. > >> For the record, I have elected to include the entire header from >> xxd.vim and the entire Vim license in the affected file for now, but I >> just want to make sure that this is all legit/OK? >> >> https://github.com/puremourning/vimspector/pull/507/files#diff-d2d644aaf55a7738084ecc39d6576740c16c914e74602d205c97dd30f44036bd >> >> <https://github.com/puremourning/vimspector/pull/507/files#diff-d2d644aaf55a7738084ecc39d6576740c16c914e74602d205c97dd30f44036bd> > > I suggest to ask the original author if he is OK with this. Perhaps > just ask to use the Apache 2 license to keep things simple. > > -- > hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: > 170. You introduce your wife as "my_l...@home.wife" and refer to your > children as "forked processes." > > /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ > /// \\\ > \\\ sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ /// > \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
-- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/9C24D9C4-AB4A-417F-90FC-D59D6076D467%40gmail.com.
