Hi!
So I’ve been thinking of licensing as of late and I have come to the
conclusion that I don’t know enough about licensing to make an informed
decision in chosing one, or how to apply one for that matter. What I
basically want to know, is the GNU suggestion of including a thirteen
lines long license note and warranty waiver in every file belonging to a
given project a necessity, or are the GNU people just overly paranoid in
this regard? I mean, if I include a LICENSE file in the root of a
project tree, is that enough to cover everything belonging to that
project? I know Linus hates having overly verbose headers in his source
files and the Linux source follows this mantra. Other project, however,
do put a full GNU license header in every file. I have done the latter
for ages, without thinking much of it after having read about doing so
when I first applied the license. I have, however, grown really tired
of seeing the line
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
in every file I open (especially now that they’re “moving” and I have to
change all of them) and would like to know if I can safely remove these
headers or not. I know that some projects put in a line along the lines
(heh) of
See the file "(COPYING|LICENSE)" for further information about the
copyright and warranty status of this work.
Is this a possible solution, and can one do without those lines as well?
Finally, if one has to include some notification of the license that the
contents of a given file falls under, how much of it is needed? Is the
warranty blurb needed? Is the “get your copy here” blurb needed?
Thanks,
nikolai
···
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
You should probably consult a lawyer if this is really important, but I'll
share what I think I know.
The source really should (maybe must) contain a copyright notice. Once it
is copyrighted, by default, people's ability to use the source is severely
limited. The GPL and other similar licenses give people additional rights
they wouldn't otherwise have.
I think if you give an unambiguous location where the license can be found,
you're going to be ok.
If the license file is always going to be available whenever and wherever
the source file is available, there's no real issue.
The warranty bit is probably not necessary, but is good to cover your butt
(just like warnings not to suffocate yourself with plastic bags).
These days it may be sufficient to provide a URL for the license and put
that in every file. Your only duty then would be to make sure that URL is
always available.
But, having said all that, this is all law stuff so your best bet is to ask
a lawyer who can advise you what the right thing to do is for your
particular situation and jurisdiction.
Ben
···
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 18:59, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
headers or not. I know that some projects put in a line along the lines
(heh) of
See the file "(COPYING|LICENSE)" for further information about the
copyright and warranty status of this work.
Is this a possible solution, and can one do without those lines as well?
Finally, if one has to include some notification of the license that the
contents of a given file falls under, how much of it is needed? Is the
warranty blurb needed? Is the “get your copy here” blurb needed?
Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> writes:
headers or not. I know that some projects put in a line along the lines
(heh) of
See the file "(COPYING|LICENSE)" for further information about the
copyright and warranty status of this work.
Is this a possible solution, and can one do without those lines as well?
Finally, if one has to include some notification of the license that the
contents of a given file falls under, how much of it is needed? Is the
warranty blurb needed? Is the “get your copy here” blurb needed?
You should probably consult a lawyer if this is really important, but I'll
share what I think I know.
The source really should (maybe must) contain a copyright notice. Once it
is copyrighted, by default, people's ability to use the source is severely
limited. The GPL and other similar licenses give people additional rights
they wouldn't otherwise have.
IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
Convention?
I think if you give an unambiguous location where the license can be found,
you're going to be ok.
If the license file is always going to be available whenever and wherever
the source file is available, there's no real issue.
The warranty bit is probably not necessary, but is good to cover your butt
(just like warnings not to suffocate yourself with plastic bags).
These days it may be sufficient to provide a URL for the license and put
that in every file. Your only duty then would be to make sure that URL is
always available.
On short programs and scripts, I usually use a header like this:
# Copyright (C) 20XX NAME <MAIL@HOST.TLD>
···
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 18:59, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
#
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
# License, or (at your option) any later version.
A link could be a useful addition, agreed...
But, having said all that, this is all law stuff so your best bet is to ask
a lawyer who can advise you what the right thing to do is for your
particular situation and jurisdiction.
Full ack.
Ben
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Yes, I believe that's true. But it's still probably good practice to apply a notice, I think.
James Edward Gray II
···
On May 12, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
Convention?
> The source really should (maybe must) contain a copyright notice. Once
it
> is copyrighted, by default, people's ability to use the source is
severely
> limited. The GPL and other similar licenses give people additional
rights
> they wouldn't otherwise have.
IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
Convention?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the file is automatically copyrighted, but I
think that's a technicality that you shouldn't count on. It's like
leaving your door unlocked. If someone walks into your house and steals
something the law says you're 100% in the right and they're 100% wrong,
but try to convince a police officer to do anything about it if you didn't
do anything at all to protect yourself.
I think if you want to have people respect your copyright at a minimum you
have to mention that it exists, even if technically you don't need to.
Ben
···
On Thursday 12 May 2005 10:16, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> writes:
IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
Convention?
Yes, I believe that's true. But it's still probably good practice to
apply a notice, I think.
Of course, I didn't question that.
···
On May 12, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
James Edward Gray II
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
James Edward Gray II, May 12:
> IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
> Convention?
Yes, I believe that's true. But it's still probably good practice to
apply a notice, I think.
Well, it’s _copyrighted_ without question. Anything I create, I own.
That’s not the question, though¹. The question is how I apply a license
to something that I have a copyright on. The copyright gives me more or
less exclusive right to whatever’s copyrighted. The point of a license
is to state what rights to the material that I give other people. So
the question remains, what exactly do I need to do to ensure license
coverage of a set of files? My hope is that I don’t have to go the GNU
way of including a license notice in every file I want included, but
instead only those that will be covered by a different license, if any,
thus having a project-wide default license, e.g., in a LICENSE or
COPYING file in the project root directory. This is how the Linux
kernel code does it, so my guess is that it’s perfectly safe in every
way, but I was wondering if anyone knew otherwise,
nikolai
···
On May 12, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
-----
¹ I hope.
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> writes:
> The source really should (maybe must) contain a copyright notice. Once
it
> is copyrighted, by default, people's ability to use the source is
severely
> limited. The GPL and other similar licenses give people additional
rights
> they wouldn't otherwise have.
IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
Convention?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the file is automatically copyrighted, but I
think that's a technicality that you shouldn't count on. It's like
leaving your door unlocked. If someone walks into your house and steals
something the law says you're 100% in the right and they're 100% wrong,
but try to convince a police officer to do anything about it if you didn't
do anything at all to protect yourself.
*Well*, at least in Germany, the latter would be considered "bluntly
negligent" (grob fahrlässig), whereas you can even get sued by copying
publicly available texts or pictures from the net.
You need to prove in any way that the source really is yours. Illegal
copies will possibly get stripped from the copyright header, anyway.
I think if you want to have people respect your copyright at a minimum you
have to mention that it exists, even if technically you don't need to.
As said, I never questioned the usefulness of a copyright notice. 
···
On Thursday 12 May 2005 10:16, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Ben
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> writes:
> IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne
> Convention?
Yes, I believe that's true. But it's still probably good practice to
apply a notice, I think.
Well, it’s _copyrighted_ without question. Anything I create, I own.
That’s not the question, though¹. The question is how I apply a license
to something that I have a copyright on. The copyright gives me more or
less exclusive right to whatever’s copyrighted. The point of a license
is to state what rights to the material that I give other people.
Ok, IIRC the GNU GPL only *grants* you rights (that you obviously
wouldn't have by default). Therefore it is actually rather easy (but
IANAL)... just don't enforce the rights you would have granted if the
GPL was applied correctly in case it was not. IOW: Don't sue if they
do what you want them to do, even if they wouldn't actually be allowed
to do that.
So
the question remains, what exactly do I need to do to ensure license
coverage of a set of files? My hope is that I don’t have to go the GNU
way of including a license notice in every file I want included, but
instead only those that will be covered by a different license, if any,
thus having a project-wide default license, e.g., in a LICENSE or
COPYING file in the project root directory. This is how the Linux
kernel code does it, so my guess is that it’s perfectly safe in every
way, but I was wondering if anyone knew otherwise,
This sounds ok...
···
On May 12, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
nikolai
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Christian Neukirchen, May 13:
> I think if you want to have people respect your copyright at a
> minimum you have to mention that it exists, even if technically you
> don't need to.
As said, I never questioned the usefulness of a copyright notice.
Neither did I. A line along the lines of
Copyright © YYYY First Last ...
is surely useful,
nikolai
···
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
Christian Neukirchen, May 13:
Ok, IIRC the GNU GPL only *grants* you rights (that you obviously
wouldn't have by default). Therefore it is actually rather easy (but
IANAL)... just don't enforce the rights you would have granted if the
GPL was applied correctly in case it was not. IOW: Don't sue if they
do what you want them to do, even if they wouldn't actually be allowed
to do that.
Wow, three acronyms beginning with the letter I in one paragraph, all of
which I didn’t know existed before I began this thread¹. You do realize
that the “I Am Not A Lawyer” acronym actually has the word “anal” as a
suffix, right? Call me anal-retentive, but how often does the need for
that acronym actually occur?
I guess you have a point there, though. As I’m only stating OPR² with
the license, I actually don’t need to worry that much about including it
everywhere.
Anyway, thanks for your input on this, and thanks to everyone who
responded,
nikolai
···
-----
¹ I keep forgetting the meaning of IIRC. It just looks like I-something
IRC (as in “Internet Relay Chat”) to me.
² Other People’s Rights. Anyone who knows who _Naughty by Nature_ are
should get this one.
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> writes:
Christian Neukirchen, May 13:
Ok, IIRC the GNU GPL only *grants* you rights (that you obviously
wouldn't have by default). Therefore it is actually rather easy (but
IANAL)... just don't enforce the rights you would have granted if the
GPL was applied correctly in case it was not. IOW: Don't sue if they
do what you want them to do, even if they wouldn't actually be allowed
to do that.
Wow, three acronyms beginning with the letter I in one paragraph, all of
which I didn’t know existed before I began this thread¹. You do realize
that the “I Am Not A Lawyer” acronym actually has the word “anal” as a
suffix, right? Call me anal-retentive, but how often does the need for
that acronym actually occur?
IANAL is the standard excuse for giving hints on legal issues without
really having a clue. 
Rather useful and often used, I think...
I guess you have a point there, though. As I’m only stating OPR² with
the license, I actually don’t need to worry that much about including it
everywhere.
Anyway, thanks for your input on this, and thanks to everyone who
responded,
nikolai
YW.
¹ I keep forgetting the meaning of IIRC. It just looks like I-something
IRC (as in “Internet Relay Chat”) to me.
If I Recall Correctly. Maybe you should wast^Wspend more time on IRC.
···
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
YW.
heh, again with the abbreviations.
> ¹ I keep forgetting the meaning of IIRC. It just looks like I-something
> IRC (as in “Internet Relay Chat”) to me.
If I Recall Correctly. Maybe you should wast^Wspend more time on IRC.
Yeah, I know. I have a smart bookmark that searches
http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/uncgi/acronym\. IIRC is weird in that one
could just as well begin by saying “I think that …” or “I believe that
…” instead of the rather stilted “If I recall correctly”.
···
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> writes:
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
YW.
heh, again with the abbreviations.
> ¹ I keep forgetting the meaning of IIRC. It just looks like I-something
> IRC (as in “Internet Relay Chat”) to me.
If I Recall Correctly. Maybe you should wast^Wspend more time on IRC.
Yeah, I know. I have a smart bookmark that searches
http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/uncgi/acronym\. IIRC is weird in that one
could just as well begin by saying “I think that …” or “I believe that
…” instead of the rather stilted “If I recall correctly”.
FYI, I only say IIRC if I mean "recall", else I also use IMO...
cu, # I run out of acronyms... YMMV.
···
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org