18 Oct 2010 10:50
18 Oct 2010 10:53
22 Oct 2010 11:12
BSD Protection License - bsdiff
John Vandenberg <jayvdb <at> gmail.com>
2010-10-22 09:12:34 GMT
2010-10-22 09:12:34 GMT
bsdiff is listed as 'Third Party Code' under a the 'BSD Protection License'. It appears to be Non-Product code. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html 'Acceptable Licenses' bullet 6 says: "Non-Product Third Party code must be under an open source license." With 'open source' linking to the OSI list http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical However 'BSD Protection License' does not appear in that list. There is a 2002 thread about this license on license-discuss <at> opensource.org, but it doesn't appear to have led to a conclusion. http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss <at> opensource.org/thrd15.html#04675 The JPEG 'license' is also not on the OSI list. http://www.evolane.com/software/etcl/3rdparty/jpeg-LICENSE.txt I appreciate that these two piece of 'Third Party Code' may have been imported before 'bullet 6' was in place. If so, perhaps this can be noted on the licensing page? Is bullet 6 a hard and fast rule?(Continue reading)
22 Oct 2010 12:20
Re: BSD Protection License - bsdiff
Gervase Markham <gerv <at> mozilla.org>
2010-10-22 10:20:24 GMT
2010-10-22 10:20:24 GMT
On 22/10/10 10:12, John Vandenberg wrote: > bsdiff is listed as 'Third Party Code' under a the 'BSD Protection > License'. It appears to be Non-Product code. It is non-product code; my understanding is that it is used for the creation (but not application; that is bspatch) of Firefox updates. However, it seems that the latest version of the license, version 4.3, is available under a straight BSD license: http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ > However 'BSD Protection License' does not appear in that list. > > There is a 2002 thread about this license on > license-discuss <at> opensource.org, but it doesn't appear to have led to a > conclusion. Indeed not. I think it's probably an open source licence, definitely in intent and probably in practice (although the email thread raises an interesting point about having to explicitly say people can sell the software). But, given the above, I suggest we fix this problem by importing the latest version, rather than debating the license. > The JPEG 'license' is also not on the OSI list. That is more surprising. > http://www.evolane.com/software/etcl/3rdparty/jpeg-LICENSE.txt(Continue reading)
22 Oct 2010 13:32
Re: BSD Protection License - bsdiff
John Vandenberg <jayvdb <at> gmail.com>
2010-10-22 11:32:30 GMT
2010-10-22 11:32:30 GMT
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv <at> mozilla.org> wrote: >.. > However, it seems that the latest version of the license, version 4.3, is > available under a straight BSD license: > http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ > >> However 'BSD Protection License' does not appear in that list. >> >> There is a 2002 thread about this license on >> license-discuss <at> opensource.org, but it doesn't appear to have led to a >> conclusion. > > Indeed not. I think it's probably an open source licence, .. I agree; and it has some nice features. > But, given the above, I suggest we fix this problem by importing the latest > version, rather than debating the license. but debating licenses is so much fun...(Continue reading)>> The JPEG 'license' is also not on the OSI list. > > That is more surprising. > >> http://www.evolane.com/software/etcl/3rdparty/jpeg-LICENSE.txt > > It seems to me that this license is a (perhaps less clear) rewrite of the > 3-clause BSD licence - include this notice, don't use my name, no warranty.
22 Oct 2010 15:27
Re: BSD Protection License - bsdiff
Gervase Markham <gerv <at> mozilla.org>
2010-10-22 13:27:43 GMT
2010-10-22 13:27:43 GMT
On 22/10/10 12:32, John Vandenberg wrote: >> It seems to me that this license is a (perhaps less clear) rewrite of the >> 3-clause BSD licence - include this notice, don't use my name, no warranty. > > Not quite; it requires that the documentation credits them. We do > this down the bottom of about:license. Yes, indeed so. > Hmm. > > I mean: like the JPEG credit-required clause. This is sort of like > invariants in GFDL, and attribution in CC-BY. It's very unlike invariants in the GFDL. Open source/free software community consensus is that requesting attribution of some sort in software form is generally OK. Requesting it in hardware form (e.g. paper adverts) is not, and saying there are things other than copyright or credit information which you can't remove and change is also not. But yes, it's a bit like attribution in CC-BY. >> Does that answer your question? It would help if you could be more specific >> about which code we are talking about. > > The code is licensed GPL-only, and the copyright holders are not > likely to look favourably on LGPL or MPL. > I'm trying to get my head around what licenses would be acceptable for(Continue reading)
RSS Feed