<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:31 AM Thomas Doerfler <<a href="mailto:thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de">thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
I think the GPL and the BSD licenses had a different approach from the<br>
start:<br>
- GPL always came with a separate "COPYING" file (and the GPL sources<br>
pointed to it)<br>
- BSD always/most of the times was included in the headers<br>
<br>
Lokking at how the linux kernel team handles this therefore only has a<br>
limited weight. So I tend to keep the BSD license text in the source<br>
code files.<br>
<br>
Keep in mind: We want to make sure the license topic is properly handled<br>
and clear. What is the harm to be conservative here and spend some extra<br>
lines of header in the files?<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Thomas.<br>
<br>
Am 21.02.20 um 02:15 schrieb Chris Johns:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On 21/2/20 12:11 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:49 PM Chris Johns <<a href="mailto:chrisj@rtems.org" target="_blank">chrisj@rtems.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:chrisj@rtems.org" target="_blank">chrisj@rtems.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 21/2/20 3:20 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:<br>
>> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:58 AM Thomas Doerfler<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de" target="_blank">thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de" target="_blank">thomas.doerfler@embedded-brains.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hello,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I just want to speak up here. I talked with Sebastian today and I really<br>
>> >> tend to keep the license text in each file.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Rational:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> - With the BSD license, anyone can pick any file from the RTEMS repo and<br>
>> >> use/modify it in any project (and this is fine). The original authors<br>
>> >> (and their copyright) are listed in the file, but the only pointer to<br>
>> >> the legal part is the "SPDX identifier". I am not sure whether this is a<br>
>> >> legally binding "tag" and whether this tag is clear to any user.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> - Strictly seen, it is not even forbidden to remove the "SPDX<br>
>> >> identifier", because it is not part of the BSD-2-clause-license, it's<br>
>> >> just a pointer to it. In the end we might result in code drifting around<br>
>> >> without license information, which we all do not want to see.<br>
>> >><br>
>> > This is a valid point. I also have no desire to be a lawyer.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > My intuition here is that, even without any licensing information at<br>
>> > all in individual files, one can still apply a single license to an<br>
>> > entire repository, e.g., BSD or GPL. For historical reasons, and<br>
>> > similar arguments as you've made, BSD-style licenses have tended to be<br>
>> > copy-pasted to individual files to make them easier to excerpt. We<br>
>> > don't have license uniformity, so we do need to individually specify<br>
>> > which license(s) apply to each file.<br>
>><br>
>> This makes sense. The simplified BSD license states ...<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright<br>
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.<br>
>><br>
>> I do not see how we can centralise this and have the "above copyright" work?<br>
>> Also the SPDX site here ...<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://spdx.org/ids-how" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://spdx.org/ids-how</a><br>
>><br>
>> ... under the heading "Standard license headers" states ...<br>
>><br>
>> When a license defines a recommended notice to attach to files<br>
>> under that license (sometimes called a "standard header"), the SPDX<br>
>> project recommends that the standard header be included in the files,<br>
>> in addition to an SPDX ID.<br>
>><br>
>> My reading of this means we should include the license in the source.<br>
>><br>
>> We need to consider compliance and machine auditing of the source. The SPDX tag<br>
>> is important. Maybe ...<br>
>><br>
>> /*<br>
>> * SPDX tag suff<br>
>> */<br>
>> /*<br>
>> * Copyright stuff<br>
>> *<br>
>> * 2-Clause BSD license<br>
>> */<br>
>><br>
>> > Linux follows a similar philosophy as Sebastian suggests. I think we<br>
>> > can also follow Linux in this regards.<br>
>> > <a href="https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > I would suggest we follow their approach to self-document the licenses<br>
>> > centrally. I suspect the risk of someone using code without adhering<br>
>> > to the license is no greater. Probably they have a higher risk<br>
>> > exposure than we do!<br>
>><br>
>> I agree with the comments in the Linux license rules text about license text in<br>
>> files making it harder to check for compliance.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Following Linux is probably a safe approach. I assume there was significant<br>
>> legal review of their policy.<br>
> <br>
> Does the Linux kernel rules apply to the 2 clause BSD license we have?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am surprised no one thought to look at FreeBSD for similar advice. :)</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/pref-license.html">https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/pref-license.html</a> </div><div><br></div><div>The example there has SPDX and license in the same comment block. Repeating</div><div>the text of the license in each file apparently.</div><div><br></div><div>The GPL is too long to repeat in a file. The best you could do is a state like "under GPLv2</div><div>seen at XXX". </div><div><br></div><div>I think we should following the FreeBSD guidance. Whether the license or Doxygen @file</div><div>is first is a different issue. I personally like the @file first. They aren't usually very long and</div><div>the license is visible when you open the file. If someone can find another project's example</div><div>including both, that would be nice to see.</div><div><br></div><div>Seeing the license when I open a file tells me nothing about the file and then I have to</div><div>page down to see the comment. Perhaps I'm just old and telling you to get off my lawn</div><div>though. :)</div><div><br></div><div>--joel</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> <br>
> Chris<br>
> <br>
<br>
-- <br>
--------------------------------------------<br>
embedded brains GmbH<br>
Thomas Doerfler<br>
Dornierstr. 4<br>
D-82178 Puchheim<br>
Germany<br>
email: <a href="mailto:Thomas.Doerfler@embedded-brains.de" target="_blank">Thomas.Doerfler@embedded-brains.de</a><br>
Phone: +49-89-18 94 741-12<br>
Fax: +49-89-18 94 741-09<br>
PGP: Public key available on request.<br>
For our privacy statement, see<br>
<a href="https://embedded-brains.de/en/data-privacy-statement/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://embedded-brains.de/en/data-privacy-statement/</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>