I've written most of the font locking code in tools/pike.el. Now I'd like to move the parts that handles autodoc comments to CC Mode. Would there be any license problems doing that? The code will then fall under the copyright assignment agreement I have with the FSF.
I for one do not have any copyright claims, but I assume you might have someone or something specific in mind. Or are you worried about some kind of intellectual property claim regarding of the autodoc system itself?
/ Johan Sundström (ärkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 04:03: Subject: pike.el
I've written most of the font locking code in tools/pike.el. Now I'd like to move the parts that handles autodoc comments to CC Mode. Would there be any license problems doing that? The code will then fall under the copyright assignment agreement I have with the FSF.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
This is how I see it: Every contributor retains copyright to a copy of his contributed code post RIS, but the parts written before IDA belongs only to Pike@IDA. So the best thing to do would probably be to get IDA to release a copy to FSF (and at the same time make sure it can be done again without the fuss), or failing that get permission from RIS to release one of the old copies.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2002-11-11 04:03: Subject: pike.el
I've written most of the font locking code in tools/pike.el. Now I'd like to move the parts that handles autodoc comments to CC Mode. Would there be any license problems doing that? The code will then fall under the copyright assignment agreement I have with the FSF.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Ah, now you got me on track too. I'll make the necessary arrangements here at IDA (it shouldn't be a problem).
/ Johan Sundström (ärkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 09:20: Subject: pike.el
This is how I see it: Every contributor retains copyright to a copy of his contributed code post RIS, but the parts written before IDA belongs only to Pike@IDA. So the best thing to do would probably be to get IDA to release a copy to FSF (and at the same time make sure it can be done again without the fuss), or failing that get permission from RIS to release one of the old copies.
/ Peter Bortas
Thank you. It would be easier if I personally got the copyright back, and it will then be automatically transferred to FSF through my agreement with them (otherwise we'd have to involve FSF directly in this). I guess the COPYRIGHT file must mention this file too then, but it's somewhat vague exactly when the copyright will be transferred from me to FSF.
(Jeez, I'm feeling exceedingly ridiculous having to meddle with silly stuff like this over a couple of hundred lines of code. All this copyright/license yada-yada seems mostly like a form of self-torture to me.)
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-11 16:11: Subject: pike.el
Ah, now you got me on track too. I'll make the necessary arrangements here at IDA (it shouldn't be a problem).
/ Johan Sundström (ärkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp)
Perhaps it is better for us to talk to FSF. After all we have a fairly substantial amount of code that might be involved in similar actions in the future. We want our code to benefit as many as possible, but we want to avoid FSF's political agenda.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:11: Subject: pike.el
Thank you. It would be easier if I personally got the copyright back, and it will then be automatically transferred to FSF through my agreement with them (otherwise we'd have to involve FSF directly in this). I guess the COPYRIGHT file must mention this file too then, but it's somewhat vague exactly when the copyright will be transferred from me to FSF.
(Jeez, I'm feeling exceedingly ridiculous having to meddle with silly stuff like this over a couple of hundred lines of code. All this copyright/license yada-yada seems mostly like a form of self-torture to me.)
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
It is really worth to bring these issues up with Uwe. All the stuff listed in COPYRIGHT has licenses that allows us to package it with the licenses we do.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-12 02:15: Subject: pike.el
From the FSF point of view I guess IDA would have to sign papers just like any other contributor. I'd rather avoid that route simply because it makes me depend on the progress between two other parties I have no control over, and knowing all too well how things works in the real world that could easily take months.
For my own sake I'd be satisfied with a simple email from Uwe saying "Ok". Then I'd consider it safe for me to add those little functions to CC Mode and therefore to FSF just like any other change I make.
(. Or hey, you haven't caught on to my diabolical plan for personal profit, have you? I was sitting here in my castle cellar, watching tubes bubble in the moonlight, and all of a sudden I realized that those functions actually contains a wonderful algorithm that will provide me with endless riches and world domination if I just could scheme to get them away from IDA. So I crafted this insidious plan, adding 4000 lines of font locking code to CC Mode just to make it look believable. And like all evil masterminds I'm spilling it all to show how clever I am. .)
Anyway, this issue has made me think about other things I might write. If I make a library that is intended to be used not only in Pike, I'd be inclined to keep the copyright to avoid being hampered by things like this, and then only contribute the pike glue for it. The practical effect would be little else than that the library gets a copyright notice in COPYRIGHT, wouldn't it?
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
He has been brought in on the first issue, at least:
| From: Uwe Assmann assmann@dagstuhl.de | Subject: Re: Pike autodoc syntax support -> (FSF) Emacs | To: Johan Sundström johsu@ida.liu.se | Cc: Uwe Assmann uweas@ida.liu.se, | Martin Stjernholm mast@roxen.com | Date: Tue Nov 12 18:22:19 2002 +0100 | | Johan Sundström wrote: | | > Hi! | > | > I just heard from Martin Stjernholm (who maintains the Emacs cc-mode | > package, which handles c-mode, c++-mode, pike-mode and some other | > languages) that he would like the pike autodoc comment handling to the | > main Emacs tree (today it lives in the shadows of the Pike repository as | > Pike/7.3/tools/pike.el and is © IDA since June). Quoting his request: | > | > > I've written most of the font locking code in tools/pike.el. Now I'd | > > like to move the parts that handles autodoc comments to CC Mode. Would | > > there be any license problems doing that? The code will then fall | > > under the copyright assignment agreement I have with the FSF. | > | > Such a move would mean that future Emacsen come with syntactic help for | > pike autodocs bundled, rather than as an add-on package from a separate | > source (us). It probably involves signing over that file, or a version | > thereof, to the Free Software Foundation. I presume we won't have to | > involve any other people at IDA to settle this? | > | > -- | > / Johan Sundström (part 1 of the autodoc instrumentation master plan? ;) | | This is a good idea, but I cannot answer the copyright question at the | moment. We must look up the contract for that. But I hope it is no problem. | Is emacs and its libraries under GPL or LGPL? | | /Uwe
Emacs is GPL, so the file couldn't stay in the Pike cvs due to GPL tainting if IDA were to "get it" through FSF. But the "back licensing" from FSF to the contributor isn't bound by GPL afaics, so that shouldn't be a problem either if IDA contributes it directly to the FSF or gives me the copyright so I can release it under e.g. BSD as well as using it in CC Mode.
Anyway, it's no big deal if pike.el has to disappear from the Pike cvs. It'll still be available from the CC Mode web site, and it'll soon be useless anyway.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-12 12:13: Subject: pike.el
It is really worth to bring these issues up with Uwe. All the stuff listed in COPYRIGHT has licenses that allows us to package it with the licenses we do.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
If pike.el is distributed with both FSF Emacs and XEmacs, there is no reason whatsoever to have it in Pike cvs.
/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)
Previous text:
2002-11-12 20:37: Subject: pike.el
He has been brought in on the first issue, at least:
| From: Uwe Assmann assmann@dagstuhl.de | Subject: Re: Pike autodoc syntax support -> (FSF) Emacs | To: Johan Sundström johsu@ida.liu.se | Cc: Uwe Assmann uweas@ida.liu.se, | Martin Stjernholm mast@roxen.com | Date: Tue Nov 12 18:22:19 2002 +0100 | | Johan Sundström wrote: | | > Hi! | > | > I just heard from Martin Stjernholm (who maintains the Emacs cc-mode | > package, which handles c-mode, c++-mode, pike-mode and some other | > languages) that he would like the pike autodoc comment handling to the | > main Emacs tree (today it lives in the shadows of the Pike repository as | > Pike/7.3/tools/pike.el and is © IDA since June). Quoting his request: | > | > > I've written most of the font locking code in tools/pike.el. Now I'd | > > like to move the parts that handles autodoc comments to CC Mode. Would | > > there be any license problems doing that? The code will then fall | > > under the copyright assignment agreement I have with the FSF. | > | > Such a move would mean that future Emacsen come with syntactic help for | > pike autodocs bundled, rather than as an add-on package from a separate | > source (us). It probably involves signing over that file, or a version | > thereof, to the Free Software Foundation. I presume we won't have to | > involve any other people at IDA to settle this? | > | > -- | > / Johan Sundström (part 1 of the autodoc instrumentation master plan? ;) | | This is a good idea, but I cannot answer the copyright question at the | moment. We must look up the contract for that. But I hope it is no problem. | Is emacs and its libraries under GPL or LGPL? | | /Uwe
Emacs is GPL, so the file couldn't stay in the Pike cvs due to GPL tainting if IDA were to "get it" through FSF. But the "back licensing" from FSF to the contributor isn't bound by GPL afaics, so that shouldn't be a problem either if IDA contributes it directly to the FSF or gives me the copyright so I can release it under e.g. BSD as well as using it in CC Mode.
Anyway, it's no big deal if pike.el has to disappear from the Pike cvs. It'll still be available from the CC Mode web site, and it'll soon be useless anyway.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Indeed it is; no need to iterate it exceedingly, IMO. I'm sure it can be handled smoothly enough anyway - the way I see it, it is in the best interest of all involved parties to move that code to cc-mode, and why not drop it from Pike CVS all together, when it isn't needed there any more?
(In that way, the repository would suffer less lisp pollution too! ;)
/ Johan Sundström (ärkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:11: Subject: pike.el
Thank you. It would be easier if I personally got the copyright back, and it will then be automatically transferred to FSF through my agreement with them (otherwise we'd have to involve FSF directly in this). I guess the COPYRIGHT file must mention this file too then, but it's somewhat vague exactly when the copyright will be transferred from me to FSF.
(Jeez, I'm feeling exceedingly ridiculous having to meddle with silly stuff like this over a couple of hundred lines of code. All this copyright/license yada-yada seems mostly like a form of self-torture to me.)
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
The file is probably still useful for some time to come, even when this version of CC Mode has been released with both Emacs and XEmacs. I have it on the web site for CC Mode, however. Perhaps that is enough.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:20: Subject: pike.el
Indeed it is; no need to iterate it exceedingly, IMO. I'm sure it can be handled smoothly enough anyway - the way I see it, it is in the best interest of all involved parties to move that code to cc-mode, and why not drop it from Pike CVS all together, when it isn't needed there any more?
(In that way, the repository would suffer less lisp pollution too! ;)
/ Johan Sundström (ärkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp)
An alternative is that IDA releases that particular code into the public domain, and that you get a signed statement to that affect ("copyright disclaimer", in FSF terminology, I think) and send to the FSF. Or perhaps you can arrange something between thse two alternatives with the FSF.
I agree this is annoying. Personally, I'm trying to make up my mind on whether or not I should assign Nettle copyright to the FSF.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:11: Subject: pike.el
Thank you. It would be easier if I personally got the copyright back, and it will then be automatically transferred to FSF through my agreement with them (otherwise we'd have to involve FSF directly in this). I guess the COPYRIGHT file must mention this file too then, but it's somewhat vague exactly when the copyright will be transferred from me to FSF.
(Jeez, I'm feeling exceedingly ridiculous having to meddle with silly stuff like this over a couple of hundred lines of code. All this copyright/license yada-yada seems mostly like a form of self-torture to me.)
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
"Public domain" is not an existing concept in the framework of Swedish copyright legislation, and since IDA is a Swedish organization operating in Sweden, any statements concerning "public domain" will at best function as a letter of intent, but is unlikely to have any strict legal force beyond that.
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:43: Subject: pike.el
An alternative is that IDA releases that particular code into the public domain, and that you get a signed statement to that affect ("copyright disclaimer", in FSF terminology, I think) and send to the FSF. Or perhaps you can arrange something between thse two alternatives with the FSF.
I agree this is annoying. Personally, I'm trying to make up my mind on whether or not I should assign Nettle copyright to the FSF.
/ Niels Möller ()
What is the closest thing you *can* do, then? Grant a non-revocable license to the public at large to do anything with the code?
I'm not really familiar with copyright law, but thair at to be some way to, for all *practical* purposes, disclaim one's onw copyright.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-11 22:06: Subject: pike.el
"Public domain" is not an existing concept in the framework of Swedish copyright legislation, and since IDA is a Swedish organization operating in Sweden, any statements concerning "public domain" will at best function as a letter of intent, but is unlikely to have any strict legal force beyond that.
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
The people who wrote (and lobbied for) the copyright legislation was mostly interested in reserving the rights, not granting them to others. Some countries had a stronger public domain tradition, which made it into their legislation, but that wasn't the case in Sweden.
You can naturally write a paper saying you disclaim all rights, but I'm not sure how binding that will be. It's quite possible that Swedish legislation will allow you to change your mind and revoke your previous disclaiming of the rights. If you've written a legally valid document (signed, on paper) granting usage rights to one or more particular person(s) (or other legal entities), that would probably hold in a court of law, but an in blanco contract with "everyone" as the beneficiary is a bit more unclear what status is would have in case of a conflict.
I'm not sure what would actually happen in a Swedish court of law in this kind of case, but considering the vagueness of the legislation, I'm far from convinced that an attempt to release something into the public domain would hold up if the rights-holder has changed his/her mind afterwards. Especially if organizations are involved, where there could also be questions as to who actually has the right to sign an irrevocable legal document on behalf of the organization.
I don't think this is likely to be any real problem for us in _practical_ terms, but creating an iron-clad legal _guarantee_ for it could be more difficult.
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
Previous text:
2002-11-11 22:15: Subject: pike.el
What is the closest thing you *can* do, then? Grant a non-revocable license to the public at large to do anything with the code?
I'm not really familiar with copyright law, but thair at to be some way to, for all *practical* purposes, disclaim one's onw copyright.
/ Niels Möller ()
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:25:01AM +0100, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
This is how I see it: Every contributor retains copyright to a copy of his contributed code post RIS,
but every contribution to pike requires a copyright assignment to IDA, how can both hold the copyright?
greetigs, martin.
It's two diffrent copies. You (explicitly as should be stated on the www-page, but I'm writing this in an AIDO-TTY, so I can't check) retain rights to use code you wrote under whatever license you choose barring the normal restrictions. FSF has something similar, but Niels probably has a better better idea of how that one works since he is the only person know that had the patience to go through the FSF-paperwork.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2002-11-11 18:37: Subject: Re: pike.el
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:25:01AM +0100, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
This is how I see it: Every contributor retains copyright to a copy of his contributed code post RIS,
but every contribution to pike requires a copyright assignment to IDA, how can both hold the copyright?
greetigs, martin.
/ Brevbäraren
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:05:04PM +0100, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
It's two diffrent copies. You (explicitly as should be stated on the www-page, but I'm writing this in an AIDO-TTY, so I can't check) retain rights to use code you wrote under whatever license you choose barring the normal restrictions. FSF has something similar
ok, that makes sense. but isn't the process of signing over your copyright itself exclusive?
you retain the rights to use the code underwhatever license you want, which essentially means that rou receive your own code back under an equivalent of the BSD license.
but that does not necessarily include the right to signover the copyright to someone else. i mean, you can't sign over the copyright twice, can you?
greetings, martin.
but isn't the process of signing over your copyright itself exclusive?
It doesn't have to be.
/ Leif Stensson, Lysator
Previous text:
2002-11-11 19:16: Subject: Re: pike.el
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:05:04PM +0100, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
It's two diffrent copies. You (explicitly as should be stated on the www-page, but I'm writing this in an AIDO-TTY, so I can't check) retain rights to use code you wrote under whatever license you choose barring the normal restrictions. FSF has something similar
ok, that makes sense. but isn't the process of signing over your copyright itself exclusive?
you retain the rights to use the code underwhatever license you want, which essentially means that rou receive your own code back under an equivalent of the BSD license.
but that does not necessarily include the right to signover the copyright to someone else. i mean, you can't sign over the copyright twice, can you?
greetings, martin.
/ Brevbäraren
Well, only one entity at a time can own the copyright (of course one could probably arange joint ownership, but that's not what's usually meant with copyright assignment). After all, the point of copyright is to apply to *all* copies, including copies that other people make.
The FSF procedure is that copyright is assigned to FSF, and in return the original author gets the right¹ to use the code in any way he or she please. But the copyright is owned by the FSF. If you want cpyright to be owned by both IDA and the FSF, I'm not sure how to arrange that.
-- ¹ Recent versions of the form seems to require 30 days prior written notice before taking advantage of that.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-11 19:04: Subject: Re: pike.el
It's two diffrent copies. You (explicitly as should be stated on the www-page, but I'm writing this in an AIDO-TTY, so I can't check) retain rights to use code you wrote under whatever license you choose barring the normal restrictions. FSF has something similar, but Niels probably has a better better idea of how that one works since he is the only person know that had the patience to go through the FSF-paperwork.
/ Peter Bortas
No, that is not how it works. IDA owns the copyright. Period. We should however make a decision to extend the right to the contributor to do whatever she wants with it (the contribution). That right is however not transferable to another party. To complicate matters even more you can not completely give away copyright under Swedish law, but that does not interfere much with matters.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 09:20: Subject: pike.el
This is how I see it: Every contributor retains copyright to a copy of his contributed code post RIS, but the parts written before IDA belongs only to Pike@IDA. So the best thing to do would probably be to get IDA to release a copy to FSF (and at the same time make sure it can be done again without the fuss), or failing that get permission from RIS to release one of the old copies.
/ Peter Bortas
We should however make a decision to extend the right to the contributor to do whatever she wants with it (the contribution). That right is however not transferable to another party.
The latter part makes no sense to me. If you don't want to allow a contributor to make a parallel release under a (say) BSD-like license, then you should say more clearly what the contributor can and cannot do.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:09: Subject: pike.el
No, that is not how it works. IDA owns the copyright. Period. We should however make a decision to extend the right to the contributor to do whatever she wants with it (the contribution). That right is however not transferable to another party. To complicate matters even more you can not completely give away copyright under Swedish law, but that does not interfere much with matters.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
That is fine. To give someone else the right to change the license is not.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:40: Subject: pike.el
We should however make a decision to extend the right to the contributor to do whatever she wants with it (the contribution). That right is however not transferable to another party.
The latter part makes no sense to me. If you don't want to allow a contributor to make a parallel release under a (say) BSD-like license, then you should say more clearly what the contributor can and cannot do.
/ Niels Möller ()
Huh? The BSD license explicitly grants anybody the right to redistribute the code under other licenses, including proprietary once. That's the main point of it. If you forbid that, you forbid BSD.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:43: Subject: pike.el
That is fine. To give someone else the right to change the license is not.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
En slamkrypare. Oh, well then that is forbidden since the contributor doesn't own the copyright. (I'm saying that to be safe, since I don't know the IDA policy in this regard)
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:46: Subject: pike.el
Huh? The BSD license explicitly grants anybody the right to redistribute the code under other licenses, including proprietary once. That's the main point of it. If you forbid that, you forbid BSD.
/ Niels Möller ()
Having a right that is not transferable renders it useless, so then we might just as well not bother.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:09: Subject: pike.el
No, that is not how it works. IDA owns the copyright. Period. We should however make a decision to extend the right to the contributor to do whatever she wants with it (the contribution). That right is however not transferable to another party. To complicate matters even more you can not completely give away copyright under Swedish law, but that does not interfere much with matters.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
You can make secret changes and sell the code in binary form without folding back patches or disclosing source code.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:51: Subject: pike.el
Having a right that is not transferable renders it useless, so then we might just as well not bother.
/ Peter Bortas
Yes... I can also sell copies of MS Windows 3.0 on the town square, but I was looking for something more legal and less embarrassing.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2002-11-11 21:57: Subject: pike.el
You can make secret changes and sell the code in binary form without folding back patches or disclosing source code.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
The difference is that you have the right to do what I wrote. But perhaps that is part of what you describe as useless.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
Previous text:
2002-11-11 22:02: Subject: pike.el
Yes... I can also sell copies of MS Windows 3.0 on the town square, but I was looking for something more legal and less embarrassing.
/ Peter Bortas
Well, there is some truth in that as long I don't involve any third part in the distribution.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2002-11-11 22:04: Subject: pike.el
The difference is that you have the right to do what I wrote. But perhaps that is part of what you describe as useless.
/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
Johan Sundstr�m (�rkehertig av Lysators rootgrupp) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum -
Leif Stensson, Lysator ＠ Pike developers forum
-
Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Martin Baehr -
Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum
-
Niels M�ller () ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Peter Bortas ＠ Pike developers forum