[PATCH] License: add a 2-clause BSD license file, and relicense a sparc64 file

[Gedare Bloom]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/2014 2:15 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2014 2:00 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>> For a bit context, I'm interested in relicensing my contributions to
>>>> use the 2-clause BSD. This is a first step in that direction. As more
>>>> of my work is relicensed, I will update the copyright statement in
>>>> LICENSE.2, and if anyone else is interested in re-licensing their
>>>> contributions, they can add their own copyright lines in the LICENSE.2
>>>> file and use similar language to refer to it.
>>> +1 comment below
>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  LICENSE.2                                          | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  .../lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c  |  5 +----
>>>>>  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 LICENSE.2
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/LICENSE.2 b/LICENSE.2
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..e85f6bb
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/LICENSE.2
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Copyright (C) 2014. Gedare Bloom.
>>>>> +
>>> Is this going to be clear it is a list of possible people holding copyright
>>> and not an "we all own it all" list?
>> I'm not sure what you mean by your quoted expression, but I guess you
>> can explain the meaning of this (and other LICENSE* files) in a
>> README?
> Usually when you see a BSD license, it is specifically the authors that
> apply
> to a specific file. If we list all names above the license, then I would
> read that
> as every person listed is a copyright holder on every file that
> references this
> license.
>
I'm not sure it matters. We should ALSO keep the copyright statements
in the individual files themselves.

My preference is to include the copyrights in this file because the
license language refers to them, it simplifies compliance, and it
gives us a single place to look for who has "given permission" to use
the LICENSE.2 licensing.

> I think all it takes is a lead in sentence something liek this
>
> This is an inclusive list of those who have submitted code to the
> RTEMS Project under this license. When this license file is referenced
> in a file or directory, one of more of the following entities (persons?)
> holds copyright to that file or contents of that directory. Please refer
> to the referencing file to determine the copyright holder.
I'd just keep the copyright names in the individual files, and avoid
this notice. Anyone that needs to get details can look at the
individual source files.

Whatever we do, we should NOT remove copyright statements from
individual files, and we should continue to add them to new files /
changes.

-Gedare

>> -Gedare
>>
>>>>> +Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>>> +modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
>>>>> +list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
>>>>> +this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
>>>>> +and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>>> +AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>>>>> +IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
>>>>> +DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
>>>>> +FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
>>>>> +DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
>>>>> +SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
>>>>> +CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
>>>>> +OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>>>>> +OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>>>> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c
>>>>> index 88750aa..6c622b6 100644
>>>>> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c
>>>>> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc64/niagara/startup/bspclean.c
>>>>> @@ -1,10 +1,7 @@
>>>>>  /*
>>>>>   * Copyright (c) 2014 Gedare Bloom.
>>>>>   *
>>>>> - * The license and distribution terms for this file may be
>>>>> - * found in the file LICENSE in this distribution or at
>>>>> - * http://www.rtems.org/license/LICENSE.
>>>>> - */
>>>>> + * This file's license is 2-clause BSD as in this distribution's LICENSE.2 file. */
>>>>>
>>>> I should leave the close of the comment on its own line.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on improving the wording (e.g. to shorten it further)
>>>> are welcome. I like to have the reference fit on a single line.
>>>>
>>>>>  #include <bsp.h>
>>>>>  #include <bsp/bootcard.h>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.9.1
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> devel at rtems.org
>>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>> --
>>> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
>>> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
>>> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>>> Support Available                (256) 722-9985
>>>
>
> --
> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
> Support Available                (256) 722-9985
>