Re: [coreboot] licensing text

[mrnuke]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:30:04 PM ron minnich wrote:
> This note is motivated by mr.nuke.me's recent CLs with a short-form GPL
> notice in them. I like that notice but I think it needs a tweak, then we
> can just use it everywhere.

Which was motivated by some of your gerrit comments.
> "This file is part of Coreboot Project. It is subject to the license terms
> in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this distribution
> and at http://www.coreboot.org/license.html. No part of the Coreboot
> Project, including this file, may be copied, modified, propagated, or
> distributed except according to the terms contained in the LICENSE file."
>
> OK, I admit, I painted it because I'm sure the shed will end up with a
> different color :-)
> Yes, yes, no html formatting in emails etc. etc. but sometimes rules must
> be broken.

I had to turn on html in Kmail to see the paint. Now that I can see the 
paint...

1. One has to consider that every line this text takes is one less line of 
code that is visible when opening a file. So, is that the absolute minimum we 
can get to. I've seen a few projects which use a license identifier tag, along 
with an explanation in the README as to what that tag means and how to 
interpret it.

2. There's no longer a place to license under GPLv2 or GPLv2+. It's always a 
nice touch, and a fun step, to decide whether a certain file you wrote should 
go under v2 or v2+.

3. Re-licensing everything under v2 will piss a lot of people who like the 
"+". Some of those v2+ contributions are heavily copied from other v2+ 
projects (read: allwinner from uboot), and I'm not sure that you can simply 
strip the "+" from the license of such files, as you're potentially 
misrepresenting the intent of the author(s).
> I regret that it contains a URL, but in these dark times, one must make
> concessions.

Old text contained both a URL and address. I think this is a step forward.
> So, does this work or do people have objections?

I need to keep my reputation as the most annoying guy. Of course I have 
objections :p.

Alex

licensing text

[ron minnich]

Note that if a file ALREADY has  notice in it, then we don't change
anything. So, in the limit, we can start using this new notice for
(e.g.) your stuff and only apply it as we wish.

That said, would you like to take a pass at the wording? Green, maybe :-)

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:41 AM, mrnuke  wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:30:04 PM ron minnich wrote:
> > This note is motivated by mr.nuke.me's recent CLs with a short-form GPL
> > notice in them. I like that notice but I think it needs a tweak, then we
> > can just use it everywhere.
>
> Which was motivated by some of your gerrit comments.
> > "This file is part of Coreboot Project. It is subject to the license terms
> > in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this distribution
> > and at http://www.coreboot.org/license.html. No part of the Coreboot
> > Project, including this file, may be copied, modified, propagated, or
> > distributed except according to the terms contained in the LICENSE file."
> >
> > OK, I admit, I painted it because I'm sure the shed will end up with a
> > different color :-)
> > Yes, yes, no html formatting in emails etc. etc. but sometimes rules must
> > be broken.
>
> I had to turn on html in Kmail to see the paint. Now that I can see the
> paint...
> One has to consider that every line this text takes is one less line of
>
> code that is visible when opening a file. So, is that the absolute minimum we
> can get to. I've seen a few projects which use a license identifier tag, along
> with an explanation in the README as to what that tag means and how to
> interpret it.
> There's no longer a place to license under GPLv2 or GPLv2+. It's always a
>
> nice touch, and a fun step, to decide whether a certain file you wrote should
> go under v2 or v2+.
> Re-licensing everything under v2 will piss a lot of people who like the
>
> "+". Some of those v2+ contributions are heavily copied from other v2+
> projects (read: allwinner from uboot), and I'm not sure that you can simply
> strip the "+" from the license of such files, as you're potentially
> misrepresenting the intent of the author(s).
> > I regret that it contains a URL, but in these dark times, one must make
> > concessions.
>
> Old text contained both a URL and address. I think this is a step forward.
> > So, does this work or do people have objections?
>
> I need to keep my reputation as the most annoying guy. Of course I have
> objections :p.
>
> Alex

licensing text

[Paul Menzel]

Am Mittwoch, den 12.02.2014, 11:41 -0600 schrieb mrnuke:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:30:04 PM ron minnich wrote:

[…]
> > "This file is part of Coreboot Project. It is subject to the license terms
> > in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this distribution
> > and at http://www.coreboot.org/license.html. No part of the Coreboot
> > Project, including this file, may be copied, modified, propagated, or
> > distributed except according to the terms contained in the LICENSE file."

[…]
> > I regret that it contains a URL, but in these dark times, one must make
> > concessions.
>
> Old text contained both a URL and address. I think this is a step forward.

Where? I do not see any URLs in the header of for example
`src/mainboard/asus/m2v-mx_se/romstage.c`.

Thanks,

Paul