Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license, so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such people. Am I wrong? Jonathan On 09/09/13 14:30, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:

I concur, you do not have to put the full license text in it, a reference to it is fine. The logic behind that request is that some files may be seen out of context of the project (as there is no reference), without having a license attached the file can be legally misrepresented as being public domain.

So yes a one liner as Andy has given is all you need, by having your name and year, any reference can be then looked up by anybody who is interested.

On 9 September 2013 14:24, Andy Robinson <andy@reportlab.com <mailto:andy@reportlab.com>> wrote:

On 9 September 2013 14:18, Jonathan Hartley <tartley@tartley.com <mailto:tartley@tartley.com>> wrote: > They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source file > (including empty __init__.py files).

I have had this with big companies before, long ago. It may actually be sufficient to have one line saying something like...

"Copyright Jonathan Hartley 2013. MIT-style license; see mypackage/LICENSE.TXT for details"

- Andy _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org <mailto:python-uk@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- Jonathan Hartley tartley@tartley.com http://tartley.com Made of meat. +44 7737 062 225 twitter/skype: tartley

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:13 +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:

Why would a file ever be seen out of context? Surely to make my source available without the LICENSE file is breaking the terms of my license, so I'm not sure why I ought to jump through hoops just to cater for such people. Am I wrong?

You are both right and wrong. You are right that this should be the case in (programmer) logic. However the issue is what does the amalgam of statute, case law, barristers and judges make of the situation. I would suggest either complying with the request, or withdraw the material from licenced use. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

Not in dunderinits though, surely? On 9 September 2013 14:30, Gilberto Gonçalves <lursty@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand your concern since it doesn't look very DRY to put the license in all the source files but I believe that putting at least a header in each of the files as well as a full License file in the root of your project is the best way to do it.

Check this: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/opensourceyourcode#applying-the-licence

Cheers, Gil

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jonathan Hartley <tartley@tartley.com>wrote:

...

A small Python project of mine is apparently being included in Chromium, because I've had a bug report from them that my source files (plural) fail their build-time license checker.

They'd like me to include a license and copyright info in every source file (including empty __init__.py files).

I've responded that I don't want to be unhelpful, but I don't believe in putting duplicate license and copyright info in every source code file. To my mind, it belongs in a single central place, i.e. the project LICENSE file.

Am I being unreasonable and/or daft?

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Hartley tartley@tartley.com http://tartley.com Made of meat. +44 7737 062 225 twitter/skype: tartley

______________________________**_________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-uk<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk>

_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- ------------------------------ Harry J.W. Percival ------------------------------ Twitter: @hjwp Mobile: +44 (0) 78877 02511 Skype: harry.percival

On 9 Sep 2013, at 14:42, Harry Percival wrote:

Not in dunderinits though, surely?

Well, if you don't then surely someone might copy your blank file and pass it off as their own and rob you of your IP revenue ;) -Matt -- Matt Hamilton, Technical Director Netsight Internet Solutions Limited http://www.netsight.co.uk/matth Tel: 0117 90 90 90 1 Ext. 13 Registered in England No. 3892180 Registered office: 40 Berkeley Square, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1HU

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:14 +0100, Daniel Pope wrote:

You don't have to include a notice of copyright to enjoy copyright protection (under the Berne Convention). Nothing is assumed to be public domain unless it is explicitly disclaimed as such.

Since licence terms are based on copyright I don't think you need to state it everywhere. If someone fails to receive a copy of the licence they can assume no rights to copy your code.

Whilst you are correct that this has been agreed by case law for books and magazines (the so called moral rights), as far as I am aware there has been no case in the UK that has provided case law for this. Legal advice is always to put an explicit statement of copyright, copyright owner and licence in all files. The issue here is "explicit is better than implicit" (*). The difficulty, at least in UK precedent, is to know the provenance of the content. Has the material been copied via a route that creates a public domain work. This sort of thing is far easier to trace for physical works. (*) See what I did there? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:14 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote: […]

Only, I think, because lawyers tend to err on the side of what they perceive as caution rather than having any confidence that their advice is actually correct.

Indeed. Most are usually interested in winning, and making money, not in doing the "right thing" (whatever that is).

You mean, was this computer program code written over 70 years ago or by somebody who died over 70 years ago? It doesn't seem very likely.

Not always. As I understand it, if there is a copyright violation that the copyright owner fails to act against, it can lead to the material being deemed to be in the public domain. But IANAL. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:55:39PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:

Not always. As I understand it, if there is a copyright violation that the copyright owner fails to act against, it can lead to the material being deemed to be in the public domain. But IANAL.

I'm pretty sure that is not true. As Doug said, I think you're thinking of trademarks, where it is true.

On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work.

Russel, thanks. That's interesting. The practical issue is "how not to forget over time". A test in a test suite, or a hook in a setup /release script which walks the files and warns you would be very useful for anyone who has to do this. We used to have a subversion commit hook once upon a time, but DVCS made it trickier. -- Andy

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Andy Robinson wrote:

On 9 September 2013 19:53, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

...

The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work.

Russel, thanks. That's interesting.

The practical issue is "how not to forget over time". A test in a test suite, or a hook in a setup /release script which walks the files and warns you would be very useful for anyone who has to do this. We used to have a subversion commit hook once upon a time, but DVCS made it trickier.

I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run along with all the other tests). Slightly nicer than a push hook IMO because you see it earlier and because it works the same way as all your other automated tests of your code. There was a bit of special code so that you got one failure per coding style violation I think (including one per missing copyright statement), but those are bonus points. Maybe somebody has written a test runner plugin that does that? My quick searches didn't turn one up, though there is this, which could easily be adapted (not a plugin, and looks like it wants to be) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12227443/is-there-a-plugin-for-pylint-and... John

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Jonathan Hartley wrote: [...]

...

I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run along with all the other tests). Slightly nicer than a push hook IMO because you see it earlier and because it works the same way as all your other automated tests of your code. There was a bit of special code so that you got one failure per coding style violation I think (including one per missing copyright statement), but those are bonus points.

Maybe somebody has written a test runner plugin that does that? My quick searches didn't turn one up, though there is this, which could easily be adapted (not a plugin, and looks like it wants to be)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12227443/is-there-a-plugin-for-pylint-and...

John _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

I don't think it should be a test runner plugin, so much as just a test. Maybe a big common utility function (in a pypi package) which a tiny custom test function can then call to parametrize it for your project.

That works. The reason I suggested a plugin was so that plugin hooks can give the coding style check function the modules (and scripts) on which to operate. John

I approve of the sentiment, but it seems to me that the unlicense is most definitely a LICENSE. Putting legal terms and conditions, or waiver of same, into a differently named file, seems a step too far. Nevertheless, sounds cool to me, I'll read up and consider using it. Thanks! On 06/10/13 22:45, Harry Percival wrote:

apologies for resurrecting a dead thread, but i came across this license and was impressed:

http://unlicense.org/

On 12 September 2013 20:08, John Lee <jjl@pobox.com <mailto:jjl@pobox.com>> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Jonathan Hartley wrote: [...]

I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run along with all the other tests). Slightly nicer than a push hook IMO because you see it earlier and because it works the same way as all your other automated tests of your code. There was a bit of special code so that you got one failure per coding style violation I think (including one per missing copyright statement), but those are bonus points.

Maybe somebody has written a test runner plugin that does that? My quick searches didn't turn one up, though there is this, which could easily be adapted (not a plugin, and looks like it wants to be)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12227443/is-there-a-plugin-for-pylint-and...

John _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org <mailto:python-uk@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

I don't think it should be a test runner plugin, so much as just a test. Maybe a big common utility function (in a pypi package) which a tiny custom test function can then call to parametrize it for your project.

That works. The reason I suggested a plugin was so that plugin hooks can give the coding style check function the modules (and scripts) on which to operate.

John _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org <mailto:python-uk@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- ------------------------------ Harry J.W. Percival ------------------------------ Twitter: @hjwp Mobile: +44 (0) 78877 02511 Skype: harry.percival

_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- Jonathan Hartley tartley@tartley.com http://tartley.com Made of meat. +44 7737 062 225 twitter/skype: tartley

If you want to relinquish copyright claims and push work into the public domain, code or otherwise, CC0 is a much more rigorous means to do so. See http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ for detail. Intent is very similar to unlicense. cheers Ben On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Doug Winter wrote:

You can't just put stuff in the public domain unfortunately, it's all a very grey area.

Also this is very poorly drafted.

If you put this statement in a file called UNLICENSE alongside your code then it would be pretty much meaningless in most jurisdictions.

Cheers,

Doug.

On 08/10/13 07:27, Jonathan Hartley wrote:

...

I approve of the sentiment, but it seems to me that the unlicense is most definitely a LICENSE. Putting legal terms and conditions, or waiver of same, into a differently named file, seems a step too far.

Nevertheless, sounds cool to me, I'll read up and consider using it. Thanks!

On 06/10/13 22:45, Harry Percival wrote:

...

apologies for resurrecting a dead thread, but i came across this license and was impressed:

http://unlicense.org/

On 12 September 2013 20:08, John Lee <jjl@pobox.com> wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Jonathan Hartley wrote: [...]

I've seen it done in a special "coding style test suite" (that gets run along with all the other tests). Slightly nicer than a push hook IMO because you see it earlier and because it works the same way as all your other automated tests of your code. There was a bit of special code so that you got one failure per coding style violation I think (including one per missing copyright statement), but those are bonus points.

Maybe somebody has written a test runner plugin that does that? My quick searches didn't turn one up, though there is this, which could easily be adapted (not a plugin, and looks like it wants to be)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12227443/is-there-a-plugin-for-pylint-and...

John _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

I don't think it should be a test runner plugin, so much as just a test. Maybe a big common utility function (in a pypi package) which a tiny custom test function can then call to parametrize it for your project.

That works. The reason I suggested a plugin was so that plugin hooks can give the coding style check function the modules (and scripts) on which to operate.

John _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- ------------------------------ Harry J.W. Percival ------------------------------ Twitter: @hjwp Mobile: +44 (0) 78877 02511 Skype: harry.percival

_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- Jonathan Hartley tartley@tartley.com http://tartley.com Made of meat. +44 7737 062 225 twitter/skype: tartley

_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- Telephone: +44 1904 567330, Mobile: +44 7879 423002 Switchboard: +44 1904 567349, Fax: +44 20 79006980 Post: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA, UK

Registered in England. Company No 5171172. VAT GB843570325. Registered Address: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk

-- Benjamin Fields Wandering Scholar e : me@benfields.net m : +44 (0)796 106 1568 t : @alsothings w : http://benfields.net "Which is more musical: a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing by a music school?" --John Cage -- As part of my participation in the Ride London 100 I’m raising money for the London Cycling Campaign. Please sponsor me at http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/BenFields Thanks!

On 09/09/13 19:53, Russel Winder wrote:

Sadly, although it would be nice to have a file that says it applies to all files and so be very DRY, this will not work in UK and USA law, possibly also other jurisdictions. The licence statement has to be in each and every individual file since in UK and USA law each file is deemed a separate work. If you check FSF and other FOSS licence places they will set this out as the process because of this problem. Some IDEs even have plugins to sort this out for you!

This. There have been many, many cases of open source projects with valid LICENSE files that turn out to have a couple of files from somewhere else that are not appropriately licensed. I don't know if anyone remembers the mplayer saga on debian-legal, for example. By putting a (c) statement and license summary in every file you are removing the risk from someone who uses your code that they are going to end up in a difficult position later. Google are being reasonable in protecting themselves here. Although getting licensing right is amazingly dull, it is relatively easy if you use a good license just follow the instructions provided with it. FWIW, personally I recommend the Apache License 2.0 as the best license available right now (if you don't care about copylefting), and it has very clear instructions in the appendix: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 That notice should be included in every file, because each is a potentially independent work. Cheers, Doug. -- Telephone: +44 1904 567330, Mobile: +44 7879 423002 Switchboard: +44 1904 567349, Fax: +44 20 79006980 Post: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA, UK Registered in England. Company No 5171172. VAT GB843570325. Registered Address: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA

On 10/09/13 13:33, Jonathan Hartley wrote:

Thanks Doug.

I'd be interested if you wanted to expand on why you like that license. Is it anything other than what I could glean from a layman's reading of the text?

It's basically the 3-clause MIT license, but legally much more watertight and (importantly) with support for patents.

That Apache license page is puzzling to me, no doubt due to my inexperience in such matters.

Why does the boilerplate attached to every file contain a partial, reworded version of clause 7 of the license, but not of any other clauses? Why is this copy reworded? Are the rewordings legally significant? If so, what do the differences mean, if not, why are they there? Presumably only a lawyer is qualified to answer.

I am not a lawyer but I think I can answer. Much of the wording of clause 7 is explicitly included because the disclaimer of warranty is the most important thing in there to YOU. Anyone who looks at this software will know there is no warranty, and won't be able to claim "oh the apache website was down" or something. Everything else is pretty much a grant to them, so no need to be so obvious about it. The rewording is because the original clause contains Definitions With Initial Capitals Which Are A Part Of A Contract. Without the defined terms earlier on it makes no sense. It also misses out the including, without limitation, bits. That is belt and braces anyhow, so maybe they just wanted to be as terse as possible in the file header.

Presumably the ':::text' boilerplate prefix just an erroneous markup snafu?

yeah looks like it. Cheers, Doug. -- Telephone: +44 1904 567330, Mobile: +44 7879 423002 Switchboard: +44 1904 567349, Fax: +44 20 79006980 Post: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA, UK Registered in England. Company No 5171172. VAT GB843570325. Registered Address: Tower House, Fishergate, York, YO10 4UA

On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:18 +0100, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 07:53:26PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:

...

Sadly, although it would be nice to have a file that says it applies to all files and so be very DRY, this will not work in UK and USA law, possibly also other jurisdictions.

Do you have a reference for this? As far as I am aware, that statement is simply wrong. Legally speaking, theoretically none of the computer files comprising a program require any sort of copyright statement or licence information whatsoever. The licence could be a completely separate thing, for example a piece of physical paper.

I am not aware of any authority that puts this in case law, so you are right to point out that I am intimating something that is not actually law. However neither am I explicitly wrong. But IANAL so you may know of authorities which make me wrong on this. You are correct that the author of any literary work has moral rights in that work. The copyright always rests with the original author unless explicitly assigned. However in the cases I have been involved with, barristers have chosen not to make any copyright arguments over source files where there was no explicit statement of copyright in the original file. Other issues yes, but not ones of copyright. My comment perhaps implied more that it should, but is founded in pragmatics. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder