Subversion code license (was Re: CVS update: ...)

[Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>]

> I'd certainly be fine with putting the license in a single file and
> referring to that at the top of each source file, instead of
> duplicated elsewhere; Roy Fielding argued against this with Apache
> code because it'd make it easier for someone to accidentally not
> follow the license, he claimed (imagine someone getting a .c file
> but not a copy of LICENSE).  Thoughts?

(I have read Greg Stein's response.)

I am uncomfortable separating the license from the code in this case.
While it should be legally sound, I think it raises practical problems
no matter how we do it.

If we reference a file, then the source code could too easily become
separated from the file, and people wouldn't know what rights they
have been granted.

If we reference a URL, then collab.net could change what comes up at
that URL, creating a big sticky mess.  (However unlikely this is under
current management, it could still happen, and part of the point of
open source is that you aren't beholden to the continued goodwill of
the owner of the source code's copyright rights.)  Or collab.net could
disappear, and people wouldn't know what rights they have been
granted.

I realize that GPL'd code separates the license terms from the source
code.  But the GPL is an extremely well-known, standard license; it's
sufficient to say "the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation" and, for now and well into
the conceivable future, no one will have any trouble tracking down a
copy of the license rights they have been granted, even if the code
has gotten separated from the copy of the license from the
distribution.  For better or for worse, the collab.net license does
not enjoy that status.

(The GPL is also huge, textually speaking, compared to our license, so
there are more compelling reasons to keep it separate.)

Re: Subversion code license (was Re: CVS update: ...)

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 07:53:36AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
>  
> > If we reference a URL, then collab.net could change what comes up at
> > that URL, creating a big sticky mess....
> 
> Or the URL could be lost as the result of a trademark dispute....

The exact text that I use for mod_dav, which attempts to deal with a
permanent location (a URL) and to deal with losing that (include a file):

/*
** Copyright (C) 1998-2000 Greg Stein. All Rights Reserved.
**
** By using this file, you agree to the terms and conditions set forth in
** the LICENSE.html file which can be found at the top level of the mod_dav
** distribution or at http://www.webdav.org/mod_dav/license-1.html.
**
** Contact information:
**   Greg Stein, PO Box 760, Palo Alto, CA, 94302
**   gstein@lyra.org, http://www.webdav.org/mod_dav/
*/


I am fortunate that I have webdav.org to use. That isn't and can't go
anywhere, so it is a fantastically stable URL for licenses :-) Businesses
such as CollabNet would have some concerns about longevity.

apache.org is also stable since it is owned by the ASF. I could easily see
the ASF acting as a "license escrow agent" for Open Source projects. We
could put the following as the URL:

   http://www.apache.org/licenses/svn/license-1.html


That would be cool. Brian? Should we ask the ASF to escrow licenses?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Subversion code license (was Re: CVS update: ...)

["Jonathan S. Shapiro" <sh...@cs.jhu.edu>]

Greg Hudson wrote:
 
> If we reference a URL, then collab.net could change what comes up at
> that URL, creating a big sticky mess....

Or the URL could be lost as the result of a trademark dispute....


Jonathan