From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-06-30 13:03:12
|
This message comes on the heels of the long thread that started as "repository for Open Source Windows" and forked into several discussions one of which was about licensing. In that part of the discussion it was suggested that we have a fall back license for countries that do not have a legal stand for public domain. Several options were given as either a replacement for our own license or as a supplement to the license. Kai was kind enough to share how his company lawyers suggested the wording to supplement the public domain license. Alexander Shaduri suggested using unlicense.org as the basis of our license but that is simply a public domain license with better wording than what we've used. I bring this up here because I believe that we should modify the preamble of our files to contain the license statement as presented their. Checking a few of the files, I see we have a variety of formats and making this change would bring all files of the MinGW runtime to the same preamble. Of contention though we have w32api which has a license created by Anders Norlander. I have in the past tried to contact Anders to no avail to ask him for permission to change the license. This presents us with a challenge in this task and I wander how Kai and his company dealt with it. I would really like to see the same license for both MinGW runtime and w32api. 1) Should we change the MinGW runtime preamble to the text found at unlicense.org? 2) How do we handle the preamble and license for w32api? Earnie |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-06-30 19:12:56
|
On 6/30/2010 9:02 AM, Earnie wrote: > This message comes on the heels of the long thread that started as > "repository for Open Source Windows" and forked into several discussions > one of which was about licensing. In that part of the discussion it was > suggested that we have a fall back license for countries that do not > have a legal stand for public domain. Several options were given as > either a replacement for our own license or as a supplement to the > license. Kai was kind enough to share how his company lawyers suggested > the wording to supplement the public domain license. Alexander Shaduri > suggested using unlicense.org as the basis of our license but that is > simply a public domain license with better wording than what we've used. > > I bring this up here because I believe that we should modify the > preamble of our files to contain the license statement as presented > their. Where? The preamble that mingw64 uses: /** * This file has no copyright assigned and is placed in the Public Domain. * This file is part of the w64 mingw-runtime package. * No warranty is given; refer to the file DISCLAIMER.PD within this package. */ (with 'w64 mingw-runtime' changed to 'w32api' or 'mingwrt' as appropriate) or the entire unlicense text (I don't see a "preamble" at unlicense.org)? And...I don't see how the unlicense solves "our" problem: that some jurisdictions don't ALLOW you to disclaim "moral" rights. So, if you DO try, then apparently your whole public domain contribution is a legal nullity, and the code is treated as if it were "all rights reserved". Which is why I think mingw64's kinda blanket statement in DISCLAIMER.PD is a good approach: "hey, if it's labelled public domain, but your juris doesn't recognize that, then assume ZPL" FYI: Must use ZPL 2.0 or greater; earlier versions not GPL compatible. > Checking a few of the files, I see we have a variety of formats > and making this change would bring all files of the MinGW runtime to the > same preamble. Uniformity would be good. > Of contention though we have w32api which has a license created by > Anders Norlander. I have in the past tried to contact Anders to no > avail to ask him for permission to change the license. This presents us > with a challenge in this task and I wander how Kai and his company dealt > with it. I would really like to see the same license for both MinGW > runtime and w32api. That would be good. > 1) Should we change the MinGW runtime preamble to the text found at > unlicense.org? What "preamble"? I only see the entire license text. And...I don't see that unlicense helps. It's an even more explicit version of "I want to do things some jurisdictions don't allow me to do". Why go thru all this effort, just to NOT solve the problem? > 2) How do we handle the preamble and license for w32api? I did a little archeology using the wayback machine. I found w32api-0.1.5 here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010703130406/http://www.acc.umu.se/~anorland/gnu-win32/w32api.html Inside it has include/windows.h, which looks very similar to ours, including the comment banner: /* windows.h - main header file for the Win32 API Written by Anders Norlander <...> This file is part of a free library for the Win32 API. This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ #ifndef _WINDOWS_H The top level README in that package is the same (or extremely similar) to our README.w32api, and includes the license text: Free headers and libraries for the Win32 API Written by Anders Norlander Send bug reports and questions to ... URL: http://www.acc.umu.se/~anorland/gnu-win32/ * License You are free to use, modify and copy this package. No restrictions are imposed on programs or object files compiled with this library. You may distribute this library as part of another package or as a modified package if and only if you do *not* restrict the usage of the portions consisting of this (optionally modified) library. If distributed as part of another package, please notify the author of what you are going to do. If distributed as a modified package, this README file *must* be included (it may be renamed). This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. So, we have two references to a "free ... library(ies) for the Win32 API", and one explicitly includes a license statement that is NOT a disclaimer of copyright nor an assertion of public domain status. I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on our own. As far as tracking him down, I've done some checking and I'll send that to Earnie privately. -- Chuck |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2010-06-30 23:29:49
|
On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 9:02 AM, Earnie wrote: > >> 2) How do we handle the preamble and license for w32api? > > I did a little archeology using the wayback machine. I found > w32api-0.1.5 here: > http://web.archive.org/web/20010703130406/http://www.acc.umu.se/~anorland/gnu-win32/w32api.html [...] > The top level README in that package is the same (or extremely similar) > to our README.w32api, and includes the license text: [...] > Written by Anders Norlander It doesn't claim copyright, but it identifies an author who would have "moral" rights in some jurisdictions. A little odd. Daniel Guerrero Miralles is identified later as having "contributed", so perhaps some "moral" rights inure to him as well. > You are free to use, modify and copy this package. No restrictions > are imposed on programs or object files compiled with this library. The first sentence sounds like you can do whatever you want. Usually a professionally-drafted license would say something like "subject to the conditions below". Odder still. > You may distribute this library as part of another package or as a > modified package if and only if you do *not* restrict the usage of > the portions consisting of this (optionally modified) library. That paragraph's "if and only if" clause seems to say exactly what rights we have...but no, the next paragraph adds an extra condition: > If distributed as part of another package, please notify the author > of what you are going to do. If distributed as a modified package, > this README file *must* be included (it may be renamed). I searched the web for the first sentence: http://www.google.com/#q="If+distributed+as+part+of+another+package"+"please+notify+the+author+of+what+you+are+going+to+do" and found only one match: an old copy of the same headers. I'd have to guess he made up his own license, as many people outside the Free Software movement did in those days. And it's internally inconsistent. > This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Corresponds verbatim et literatim to GNU LGPL 2.1 . > So, we have two references to a "free ... library(ies) for the Win32 > API", and one explicitly includes a license statement that is NOT a > disclaimer of copyright nor an assertion of public domain status. > > I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from > Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on > our own. Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements, but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is* our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander. BTW, I looked in 'w32api-3.13-mingw32-dev.tar.gz' (latest copy I happen to have laying around) and it doesn't seem to contain this README. |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-07-02 04:47:30
|
On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote: > On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote: >> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from >> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on >> our own. > > Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements, > but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is* > our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander. Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander. The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change the license TO? plain old PD? unlicense? PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback? punt and use a more...traditional non-copyleft license like MIT/X or BSD-3-clause? > BTW, I looked in 'w32api-3.13-mingw32-dev.tar.gz' (latest copy I happen > to have laying around) and it doesn't seem to contain this README. Confirmed. This is a packaging bug. We should either include the README in the -dev package (installed into share/w32api/3.xx/), OR provide it in a separate -lic package (which I think is ok, just like all the other packages. It'd be up to the end-user to decide whether or not to dl the license file; and it's painfully obvious exactly where to get that license). -- Chuck |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-07-02 12:36:52
|
Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote: >> On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from >>> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on >>> our own. >> >> Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements, >> but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is* >> our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander. > > Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander. > The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change > the license TO? > > plain old PD? > unlicense? > PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback? > punt and use a more...traditional non-copyleft license like MIT/X or > BSD-3-clause? > Or just use the ZPL as the license with a PD statement as the COPYRIGHT.txt file. So, reading the ZPL, I'm wandering how it helps the issue of countries who don't recognize PD as legal. What does Kai use for his accompanying copyright file text? Earnie |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2010-07-02 13:14:22
|
On 2010-07-02 04:46Z, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote: >> On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from >>> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on >>> our own. >> >> Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements, >> but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is* >> our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander. > > Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander. > The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change > the license TO? The original seems very close to a 3- or even 2-clause BSD license, so... > plain old PD? That would be asking him to give up rights that he apparently preferred to retain. > unlicense? Same issue as PD. > PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback? Same issue. In addition, this would be a unique hybrid. When I encounter, say, a BSD license, I know what it means; I scan the words to make sure it's really BSD, but I don't have to ponder its meaning. And in this case I don't see any value in the trademark and "prominent notices" clauses that ZPL adds to BSD. > punt and use a more...traditional non-copyleft license like MIT/X or > BSD-3-clause? That seems closest to the original. |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-07-02 17:01:24
|
How about the following text as a license for the runtime? We'll have to wait to hear from Anders on the w32api. I copied the unlicense.org text and added a paragraph above the disclaimer which I think better accomplishes the requirement of countries that do not recognize the public domain license as legal. <file name="LICENSE"> <contents> This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means. In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this software under copyright law. In jurisdictions that do not recognize the public domain as a legal license or the right of persons to forfeit their copyright the authors give you full use of the code as you see fit including copying, modification and redistribution of the code without any recourse, action, reward, compensation, remuneration or retribution. You may incorporate any of the code as your own private proprietary code without acknowledgment of copyright holders of the code. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. </contents> </license> |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2010-07-02 23:53:03
|
On 2010-07-02 17:01Z, Earnie wrote: > How about the following text as a license for the runtime? We'll have > to wait to hear from Anders on the w32api. If he agrees to, say, an MIT license for w32api, then it'd be nice to use that for mingwrt as well. > I copied the unlicense.org > text and added a paragraph above the disclaimer which I think better > accomplishes the requirement of countries that do not recognize the > public domain license as legal. Let me offer a cautionary tale. I went through years of negotiation with my employer (not a software company) over some GPL code I had written. Their "intellectual property expert" reviewed the license and presented many objections and ideas for "improving" it. I was ultimately able to get senior management to override this nonsense largely because the GPL is so widely respected and used. If it's accepted by companies like IBM who've certainly had genuine experts scrutinize it, then the supposed objections raised in house are unlikely to have any actual merit. [BTW, I'm not saying this is my *current* employer.] I probably could have succeeded with the BSD or MIT licenses, for the same reasons. But licenses that are less well known and less well drafted don't have that benefit--and I really think this one is poorly drafted. For example, the "unlicense" says: > In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors > of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the > software to the public domain. They probably intend that to mean jurisdictions like the US and unlike France. But that's not what it does mean, because France most certainly does recognize copyright laws. France meets the criterion preceding the comma, but doesn't permit the rest of the sentence to operate AIUI. YANAL, AFAIK, but the paragraph you added is better than this. I could pick at other details of this thing, but the real point is that it's safer to go with a finely-crafted license that's in widespread use and has stood the test of time. I would suggest dual-licensing everything: provide PD as well as either MIT or (2- or 3-clause) BSD, and let the user choose. |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-07-03 01:54:15
|
On 7/2/2010 7:52 PM, Greg Chicares wrote: > the real point > is that it's safer to go with a finely-crafted license that's > in widespread use and has stood the test of time. I would suggest > dual-licensing everything: provide PD as well as either MIT or > (2- or 3-clause) BSD, and let the user choose. I agree that it is better to use a standard license than for a bunch of us armchair copyright "experts" to sit around and try to draft our own. Re: Earnie's redrafted unlicense: I'd never heard of the original "unlicense" before it was mentioned on this list -- and I pay attention to these sorts of things, so I've seen a lot of 'em. This one...I have no idea who drafted it, if any legal advice was used, or how well it has actually stood the test of time. Earnie's improvement, as well intentioned as it is, is basically just YA custom license. That worries me. Now, re: mingw64's "pd or zpl" thingamabob. Ordinarily I'd be skittish of THAT one, TOO -- except that according to Kai they DID get legal advice in drafting it. (But those lawyers don't work for US, and legal advice is only valid for the specific clients for whom it is drafted, yadda yadda yadda). But all of this dances around the issue: we're trying to use public domain (no rights retained) in a universal sense, when some jurisdictions don't allow you to waive all rights. The mingw64 solution is not dual license, but rather EITHER/OR: IF pd is recognized, then we disclaim copyright and assert pd; ELSE we assert copyright and license under zpl. But I don't think you can do BOTH/AND: BOTH simultaneously disclaim copyright and assert pd, AND assert copyright and license under MIT/X|BSD|etc. I think you can multiple-license under many (compatible) licenses -- but they all are based on copyright law and assume you are asserting copyright. I *don't* think you can simultaneously mix pd and ANY license (e.g. BOTH/AND). Since w32api is basically licensed under a homegrown MIT/X-ish (or BSD-2-clause-ish) license, I think the most reasonable thing to do in the case of w32api is to try to get the license changed to one of those two. Now, because this may conflict with mingw64, as most of their w32api-ish stuff uses the DISCLAIMER.PD language: pd OR zpl, depending solely on the legal jurisdiction NOT on the end users' desires. For harmony with our 64bit friends, maybe following their lead would be a good idea there, instead -- but that would be a bigger change to ask Norlander to make. As for the mingwrt stuff, which is currently pd...well, whatever we do for w32api, it SURE would be nice if mingwrt was the same. But it's not the end of the world if they are different. Aside: I've never understood what the original rationale was for pd. It seems to me that MIT/X or BSD-2-clause do just as good a job at ensuring that anyone can use the code for any purpose, AND don't run afoul of these jurisdictional issues... -- Chuck |
From: Kai T. <kti...@go...> - 2010-07-03 08:19:52
|
2010/7/3 Charles Wilson <cwi...@us...>: > Now, re: mingw64's "pd or zpl" thingamabob. Ordinarily I'd be skittish > of THAT one, TOO -- except that according to Kai they DID get legal > advice in drafting it. (But those lawyers don't work for US, and legal > advice is only valid for the specific clients for whom it is drafted, > yadda yadda yadda). Well, our lawyers drafted this license in respect to US law and European law (here is Germany and France of interest). Btw even in the US there isn't one jurisdictation for copyright. > But all of this dances around the issue: we're trying to use public > domain (no rights retained) in a universal sense, when some > jurisdictions don't allow you to waive all rights. > > The mingw64 solution is not dual license, but rather EITHER/OR: IF pd is > recognized, then we disclaim copyright and assert pd; ELSE we assert > copyright and license under zpl. Right, most parts are licensed under PD, some parts are licensed under BSD/LGPL/etc , and some parts have just the ZPL license . All files using a specific license are prominent marked. But the major thing here is, that in any law-suite, if a specific part is invalid for the local jurisdictions, it gets replaced by the most nearest, expressed legal terms. So we just specify what license should become nearest term by defaulting back to ZPL. Kai -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2010-07-03 11:34:19
|
On 2010-07-03 01:53Z, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 7/2/2010 7:52 PM, Greg Chicares wrote: >> the real point >> is that it's safer to go with a finely-crafted license that's >> in widespread use and has stood the test of time. I would suggest >> dual-licensing everything: provide PD as well as either MIT or >> (2- or 3-clause) BSD, and let the user choose. > > The mingw64 solution is not dual license, but rather EITHER/OR: IF pd is > recognized, then we disclaim copyright and assert pd; ELSE we assert > copyright and license under zpl. > > But I don't think you can do BOTH/AND: BOTH simultaneously disclaim > copyright and assert pd, AND assert copyright and license under > MIT/X|BSD|etc. I think you can multiple-license under many (compatible) > licenses -- but they all are based on copyright law and assume you are > asserting copyright. I *don't* think you can simultaneously mix pd and > ANY license (e.g. BOTH/AND). Okay, I understand the apparent contradiction: you can issue a license only if you own the copyright. If you don't own it, then you can't license it. The question here is to what extent you can abandon ownership. Now, we know that in some countries an author can't lose certain rights. In France, AIUI, I can create a sculpture and sell it to you, but you can't burn it in public--that's against the cultural values expressed in their law. But consider this article by OSI's general counsel: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 | Why the Public Domain Isn't a License | it is possible for a software creator to give it away. ... | Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. ... The donor can retract his | gift at any time, for any reason AIUI, he's saying that in the US you can't truly abandon ownership, because you can reclaim it at will: | no mechanism is in the law by which an owner of software can simply | elect to place it in the public domain. So I can create a sculpture, disclaim ownership, and put it in a public park; but the police can order me to remove it, because I'm still the owner no matter what I might say. He goes on to say: | [...] If you want to give away software for any use whatsoever, | use a simple license such as the MIT license. Let me retract my earlier suggestion and instead ask: what would we hope to accomplish with PD, that the MIT license doesn't already accomplish? IOW: > Aside: I've never understood what the original rationale was for pd. It > seems to me that MIT/X or BSD-2-clause do just as good a job at ensuring > that anyone can use the code for any purpose, AND don't run afoul of > these jurisdictional issues... |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-07-06 15:35:53
|
If we go the no PD route then I prefer MIT over BSD. But in either case who becomes the Copyright Holder, the original owners or should we require assignment to MinGW? And if assignment then MinGW needs to become a legal entity. Earnie |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-07-07 02:27:54
|
On 7/6/2010 11:35 AM, Earnie wrote: > If we go the no PD route then I prefer MIT over BSD. For this purpose, I agree. > But in either case > who becomes the Copyright Holder, the original owners or should we > require assignment to MinGW? And if assignment then MinGW needs to > become a legal entity. I think mingw.org can assert copyright over the collection without being a legal entity; plenty of open source projects do so. Now, to execute a contract (which the transfer of copyright ownership would be) then yes, an actual legal existence probably would be necessary. Which makes it simpler to adopt the Linux, as opposed to FSF, model: all individual contributions' copyright remains with the original contributor, released under the MIT/X (or whatever) terms as part of a *collection* whose copyright is asserted by mingw.org. But IANAL, yadda yadda yadda -- Chuck |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2010-07-15 14:38:54
|
Charles Wilson wrote: > On 7/6/2010 11:35 AM, Earnie wrote: >> If we go the no PD route then I prefer MIT over BSD. > > For this purpose, I agree. > >> But in either case >> who becomes the Copyright Holder, the original owners or should we >> require assignment to MinGW? And if assignment then MinGW needs to >> become a legal entity. > > I think mingw.org can assert copyright over the collection without being > a legal entity; plenty of open source projects do so. Now, to execute a > contract (which the transfer of copyright ownership would be) then yes, > an actual legal existence probably would be necessary. > > Which makes it simpler to adopt the Linux, as opposed to FSF, model: all > individual contributions' copyright remains with the original > contributor, released under the MIT/X (or whatever) terms as part of a > *collection* whose copyright is asserted by mingw.org. > So contemplating this sentence I found an article in the LinuxJournal that asserts that "public interfaces" cannot be copyrighted. I have the paragraph from the article http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1297 copied below. Leveraging this, could we state that we have no copyright due to the fact that we define "public interfaces"? However, we do have the mingwex library we still need to consider a license for. <excerpt> Some people assume that because they use #include to include system header files in their application, their application is suddenly considered to be “derived from” those header files. This is not the case; the declarations in header files are legally considered “public interfaces” and cannot be copyrighted. This is the same as any other development platform: the header files on every commercial platform sport copyright notices that assert ownership over the header files, but that doesn't mean your application was derived from those header files. </excerpt> Earnie |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2010-07-16 14:08:25
|
On 7/15/2010 10:38 AM, Earnie wrote: > Charles Wilson wrote: >> I think mingw.org can assert copyright over the collection without being >> a legal entity; plenty of open source projects do so. Now, to execute a >> contract (which the transfer of copyright ownership would be) then yes, >> an actual legal existence probably would be necessary. >> >> Which makes it simpler to adopt the Linux, as opposed to FSF, model: all >> individual contributions' copyright remains with the original >> contributor, released under the MIT/X (or whatever) terms as part of a >> *collection* whose copyright is asserted by mingw.org. >> > > So contemplating this sentence I found an article in the LinuxJournal > that asserts that "public interfaces" cannot be copyrighted. I have the > paragraph from the article http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1297 > copied below. Leveraging this, could we state that we have no copyright > due to the fact that we define "public interfaces"? However, we do have > the mingwex library we still need to consider a license for. > > <excerpt> > Some people assume that because they use #include to include system > header files in their application, their application is suddenly > considered to be “derived from” those header files. This is not the > case; the declarations in header files are legally considered “public > interfaces” and cannot be copyrighted. This is the same as any other > development platform: the header files on every commercial platform > sport copyright notices that assert ownership over the header files, but > that doesn't mean your application was derived from those header files. > </excerpt> I don't think it is wise for us to rely on a loosely-written summary found in a magazine article; legal advice it is not. You certainly can copyright header files you have created -- as the article itself states. However, the *extent of protection* provided to your work, under the rules of copyright, might be limited. E.g. the normal rules governing derived works may not apply, etc etc. But...the headers themselves remain copyrighted; NO one would argue that it's legal to copy the entire Windows SDK, slap "Provided by mingw.org under public domain" on each file, and distribute them because "headers can't be copyrighted". You MIGHT, repeat MIGHT, be able to plausibly argue that premise in the case of *microsoft's* headers ALONE, because only they have signed a consent decree with the US government concerning their interfaces and API interoperability. That consent decree is still in force, but the argument is pretty flimsy -- not one I'd want mingw to pioneer, 'cause it would certainly land somebody in court. -- Chuck |
From: Earnie <ea...@us...> - 2011-11-15 14:03:23
|
Earnie wrote: > We'll have to wait to hear from Anders on the w32api. That isn't true, we've already heard from Anders. https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=8593763 Forgot about that thread until looking at the ChangeLog after noticing the PD license text in the README.w32api and I was the one who made the modification. So if we want to add a MIT dual license clause we will be fine. Charles Wilson wrote: > On 7/6/2010 11:35 AM, Earnie wrote: >> If we go the no PD route then I prefer MIT over BSD. > > For this purpose, I agree. > The question is, do we need to ? Earnie |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2011-11-15 15:37:17
|
Holy Necro'd Threads, Batman! Give me some time to re-read the whole context... -- Chuck |