On 10/22/2015 11:00 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
From my previous discussions with lawyers on the topic, the third paragraph is unproblematic to remove.
With resolutions of today's monitors
And if you're running a 4k screen, do you really want $100 of real-estate being occupied by boilerplate? (Those monitors aren't cheap)
and keyboards often having a page down key,
My macbookpro doesn't have a PgDn key.
keeping the second paragraph seems like a good compromise to stay friends with the legal experts and err on the safe side.
(Realistic) sarcasm aside, I am sensitive to the legal concerns, and I do agree with Patrick's concern that we should do our due diligence to make sure we don't break lawyer's tools. That being said, I think we can all agree that taking 'licensecheck' as the lowest common denominator is not unreasonable.
Considering that this lowest common denominator has no issues identifying the terms with just the first paragraph, a human being should have no problem with this. I think it's worth the extra effort to simplify the headers, and ultimately focus on coding, not boilerplating. I'd also like to see a short (one to three lines) description of _what_ a file does above the license headers.
Alex
Stefan
- ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com [151021 05:41]:
Let me ask around.
ron
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:20 PM Martin Roth gaumless@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen any disagreement that we get rid of the entire third paragraph. Alex votes that we should get rid of the second paragraph of the header as well, and what Ron posted SEEMS to support that we can, although the wording in that license header might be different enough that it doesn't apply to our case. Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the second paragraph. It looks to me like the first paragraph just discusses distribution, not liability. I don't really see any NEED to get rid of the second paragraph. Are there any other thoughts either way on getting rid of the second paragraph? Martin On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/20/2015 10:54 AM, ron minnich wrote: >> Eben Moglen, who ought to know, guided us on the release rules for the >> Plan 9 GPL release. >> >> Here is what he told us could go in each file: >> /* >> * This file is part of the UCB release of Plan 9. It is subject to the >> license >> * terms in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this >> * distribution and at http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/files/Plan9License. No >> * part of the UCB release of Plan 9, including this file, may be copied, >> * modified, propagated, or distributed except according to the terms >> contained >> * in the LICENSE file. >> */ > > +2 > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:30 AM Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com >> <mailto:pgeorgi@google.com>> wrote: >> Get (the right set of) lawyers to sign off on that. > > You were saying, Patrick? > > Alex > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot