License notices (was: Re: News about the macro archive)

[Bastiaan Veelo]

Hi!

Before replying to Peter, there is a very simple solution to the 
copyright and license notices issue, which is working to all 
satisfaction today. It involves an empty line between the documentation 
section and the legal info, as in

>dnl @category InstalledPackages
>dnl @author Bastiaan Veelo <address@hidden>
>dnl @version 2005-01-24
>dnl @license AllPermissive
>
>dnl Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 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.
>
>dnl Calls BNV_PATH_QT_DIRECT (contained in this file) as a subroutine.
>AC_DEFUN([BNV_HAVE_QT],
>[

This way the legal info stays intact in the m4 source, and it appears in 
typewriter font in the HTML documentation, right before the macro 
definition. This is just right, because when cutting and pasting a macro 
from the webpage, the legal info is likely to follow with it. See this
example is http://www.gnu.org/software/ac-archive/bnv_have_qt.html. 
There is no need to emphasize or otherwise marcup the legal info in the 
documentation.

IMHO the @license line is redundant and slightly misleading, but if it 
makes maintaining the archive more fun, so be it.


Peter Simons wrote:

> Bastiaan Veelo writes:
>
> >> @license AllPermissive
>
> > If you are worried about duplication of the license, why
> > not test for the text that Tom has been inserting?
>
> Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Us Germans, you know, love
> efficiency. It's in our genome. ;-)

:-) Oh, so you can't help it! ;-)
Of course I have no problem with efficiency (or German genes for that 
matter, my wife is from Germany too). But whether you like it or not, a 
file that does not contain a description in english text of what you can 
do with it, is non-free and you can not use it the way you want to 
(except for the files that you wrote yourself). It is against 
international law. It is a fact, I can't help it. There is no need to 
debate this, I am not looking for a fight.

> So when I look at the
> problem, I see this:
>
> (1) "@license AllPermissive" is easier to insert correctly
>     (so that it is recognized reliably) than a multi-line
>     verbatim text license is.
>  

So far I thought Tom has been inserting the license text, so why not let 
him decide what is easier?

> (2) Once we know all @license tags are properly assigned, a
>     tool can insert the multi-line, verbatim text
>     automatically, and then it is _guaranteed_ that this
>     text looks alike everywhere and that it can be
>     recognized by software.
>  

This is acceptable I think as long as it is in an intermediate stage, 
somewhere off-line, and files are equiped with a verbatim text before 
they go online.

> (3) The tool will also handle "@license GPL2", "@license
>     GPLWithACException", and "@license BSD" in the same
>     run.
>  

If you feel the need to check the exact wording of the license and a 
keyword makes this easier, we can have both a keyword and the license 
notice, like Guido suggested in his "foxtrot" mail:

> @license [optional keyword]
>    verbose text


> (4) The tool will also add the proper "Copyright (c) <date>
>     <author>" lines automatically, which is much harder to
>     get right manually.
>  

The copyright is owned by the macro author, so it is his/her worry. By 
the way, I think it is much harder to generate copyright notices 
automatically, because they should contain every year in which the file 
was modified nontrivially. I don't understand why you think getting a 
copyright notice right manually is hard.

> All this tells me: Shit, why bother? Let the tool do it!
>  

Let the tool do what? Generate copyright and license notices in HTML? 
That is okay if you can. Actually, I was wrong before to say we could do 
without that information on the webpage, because the macro source is 
displayed there too, so the legal info must be there too. But the most 
important is that the m4 _source_ is licensed! It is the source that is, 
well, the source.

> For the tool to do its job correctly, the markup
>
>  dnl @author Bastiaan Veelo <address@hidden>
>  dnl @version 2005-01-15
>  dnl @license AllPermissive
>
> is just, well, better than
>
>  dnl Copyright (C) 2005 by Bastiaan Veelo <address@hidden>.
>  dnl Copying and distribution of this file, with or without
>  dnl modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty
>  dnl provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
>
> is. Compare with point (1).
>
> I think it's pretty obvious actually. ;-)
>  

See above.

> > Every file _has to have_ a verbose license statement,
> > original files as well as any generated files.
>
> I guess this is the core of the problem, this shows where we
> really disagree.

Correct.

> I think it's perfectly irrelevant whether a
> file has a verbose license statement or not.

So if it is irrelevant to you, please go with the verbose statement (at 
least in the m4 source).

> Personally, I
> think it's insane to say "I don't give a shit what you do
> with this software",

Nobody says that, it is you who interpretes "@license AllPermissive" 
that way. Right?

> and then to insert lines of lines of
> redundant disclaimers that say "Yeah, I really don't care
> what you do with this software. And under no circumstances
> must you remove this statement so that everybody knows I
> don't care. Go figure."
>  

But everybody has to know that, otherwise they can not copy, change or 
distribute... Only the people on this list know that "@license 
AllPermissive" means this three-line license notice.

> I think it's contradictory.
>  

What is? To say it is free but not so free that you may strip the 
copyright and license? You may be right, but it is one of the pilars on 
which the GNU system and FSF stands.

> I remember the times when thousands of programs where shared
> and developed around the planet and all that anyone ever
> cared about legalese was "This is in the public domain." and
> that was it.

Excellent example! "This is in the public domain." A verbal english full 
sentence stating your rights. Strip that sentence or replace it by a 
keyword and what do you get?  Something that is not in the public 
domain. Copyright protects works by default, and you have to soften this 
protection explicitly if so desired.

> And this is how the archive was run for the
> last six years. No file ever had a license disclaimer, but
> that didn't keep people from submitting 300+ macros to it.
> And it didn't keep any of you guys from contributing either.
>  

I remember checking under which license the archive was distributed 
before I considered submitting my macro to you. I have read and adopted 
the GPL and exception back then. But I did not realise that a license 
notice should be present in the file to be correct. Luckily, we are 
fixing that now ;-) Anyway, my macro has /always/ had a copyright 
statement in it, although not at the top.

So you are wrong in assuming none of use ever cared before.

> That's why I wonder what all the fuzz is about.
>
>  

I hope it is clear now!
Could you please keep things working the way they work today and as 
described at the top of this mail? I am perfectly happy and have no 
other wishes :-)

Cheers,
Bastiaan.