Re: licenses in generated m4 files

[Bastiaan Veelo]

Peter Simons wrote:

> Bastiaan Veelo writes:
>
> > [There] is no need to discuss this, because as has been
> > pointed out before:
>
> > "Every nontrivial file needs a license notice as well as
> > the copyright notice. (Without a license notice giving
> > permission to copy and change the file would make the file
> > non-free.)"
> > 
> (http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html#License-Notices)
>
> Well, my point is that the files (a) _are_ trivial because
> they are just automatically derived versions of some other
> file and that they (b) _do_ contain a license because there
> is an URL pointing towards the page stating it.
>  

For the definition of triviality in this respect, see 
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices: 
"Any file more than ten lines long is nontrivial for this purpose." The 
generated file is a derived work, and the process is therefore subject 
to copyright law and the license of the original. And a URL is really 
not the same as a copyright and license notice.

> So if others really feel that strongly about this topic,
> I'll make the necessary changes once I have a concrete
> proposal that answers:
>
> (1) How does the author choose which license his macro is
>     under? How does the markup format specify this
>     information? Who takes care of editing the existing
>     macros to comply with this change (in case that will be
>     necessary)?
>  

I don't require any mention of license in the generated HTML page, 
although some may see this as a derived work as well.

> (2) Which licenses do we accept?
>  

Adopting the all permisive license as mentioned by others for the whole 
archive would be most practical. Make it a requirement for new 
submissions and contact authors for re-licensing.

> (3) What does the generated m4 source look like for each
>     respective license we support?
>  

In generated m4 source the license should appear as it appears in the 
original. Example:

> dnl Copyright (C) 2002, 2005, Bastiaan Veelo
> dnl Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> dnl are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> dnl notice and this notice are preserved.


But we can cut things short. If I am being a PITA, I propose to remove 
myself. I do not care much for markup, and I would like to see my macro 
distributed just like I write it. Then it has all the necessary legal 
stuff and documentation in it, and I am happy. Guido's archive looks 
like a perfect match to my desires (untill he catches the "generate and 
process virus" ;-)) so the easiest may be to take bnv_have_qt there and 
leave you in peace :-)

Sincerely,
Bastiaan.