AGX : copyright+license everywhere ?

[Siggg]

Would anyone mind if I update AGX so that it adds a copyright + license
header in *every* file it generates ? including the XML GenericSetup file ?

My motivation is that the copyright statement and license paragraph seem
to be legally required in order to provide any real protection over the
generated work. Unless we insert these 2 items in *all* files, the
omitting files aren't protected by the laws on copyright. Note that
IANAL, of course.

Practically speaking, the FSF hosts a software forge
(http://www.gna.org/) which refuses to host software with files omitting
the copyright statement and/or the license paragraph because of the
legal risks attached to such omissions. I would personally tend to
believe the FSF folks when it comes to legal issues related to copyright.

And the FSF's GPL HOWTO
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html) says :

"""
Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying permission,
saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).
"""

and also :

"""
The copying permission statement should come right after the copyright
notices. For a one-file program, the statement (for the GPL) should look
like this:
"""
(a long paragraph follows, which is currently included in the header of
every __init__.py file but not in every file).

What do you think ?

--
Sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Reinoud van Leeuwen]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Sig wrote:

> Would anyone mind if I update AGX so that it adds a copyright + license
> header in *every* file it generates ? including the XML GenericSetup file ?

Who has the copyright on an autogenerated file? Is the person that clicks
the button considered a 'creator'?

(I am not a copyright lawyer...)

--
__________________________________________________
"Nothing is as subjective as reality"
Reinoud van Leeuwen    [hidden email]
http://reinoud.van.leeuwen.net kvk 27320762
__________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Siggg]

Reinoud van Leeuwen a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Sig wrote:
>> Would anyone mind if I update AGX so that it adds a copyright + license
>> header in *every* file it generates ? including the XML GenericSetup file ?
>
> Who has the copyright on an autogenerated file? Is the person that clicks
> the button considered a 'creator'?

The copyright holders are at least the person providing the model from
which it is generated.

The authors of AGX (which I am part of) might claim some copyright on
the generated program. But I am not sure such claims would be solid
enough. Maybe that code generation is not that far different from file
or document generation from, let's say, a spreadsheet program. I may be
very wrong here. Maybe AGX should state somewhere that the authors of
AGX transfer any copyright on the generated program to the author of the
corresponding model ?

Anyway, I don't think anyone would get in any legal trouble because of
such an uncertainty :
- as long as the generated program is not distributed (for internal use
only, or for use on a public web site but without being redistributed to
third parties)
- or as long as the generated program is distributed under one of the
allowed licenses listed in the AGX code. I recently added the GNU Affero
General Public License to this list. And other authors might add further
licenses, I guess. (Including, possibly, "proprietary" licenses !?)

My intent is to let the copyright statement generated from the model be
visible in *all* files (including XML files) when such statement is
available in the model. Same for the licensing text. A full copy of the
license should be available in a distinct file named COPYING, not
generated by AGX but to be manually added. This seems to be a "best
practice", at least according to the FSF licensing FAQ.

What do you think ?

> (I am not a copyright lawyer...)

Nor am I... :)

--
Sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Alexander Limi]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:48:19 -0800, Sig  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> My motivation is that the copyright statement and license paragraph seem
> to be legally required in order to provide any real protection over the
> generated work. Unless we insert these 2 items in *all* files, the
> omitting files aren't protected by the laws on copyright. Note that
> IANAL, of course.

You don't need to assert copyright explicitly, you always have it.  
Trademarks are different, and you may lose them if you don't protect them.  
Copyright is a basic right that generally can't be taken away (not at all  
in the EU, and only if you sign it over in the US — not sure about other  
jurisdictions).

I would ask our legal counsel — Software Freedom Law Center — whether  
having the license and copyright statement is required in every single  
file. I'm pretty sure you can declare a collection of files under the same  
license and copyright. But do ask, because they *are* lawyers. ;)

--
Alexander Limi · http://limi.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Siggg]

Dear and Beloved Software Freedom Law Center,

Alexander Limi wrote :
> I would ask our legal counsel — Software Freedom Law Center — whether  
> having the license and copyright statement is required in every single  
> file. I'm pretty sure you can declare a collection of files under the same  
> license and copyright. But do ask, because they *are* lawyers. ;)

In the Plone community, we have a popular code generator which is called
ArchGenXML (AGX). It takes an UML model as input and generates a Plone
product from it. The product license and copyright holders can be
defined in the model. At the moment, AGX does not insert a copyright
statement and a copy permission statement in *all* generated files but
only in a couple of files per subdirectory in the product. But the FSF
GPL howto recommends that *all* files contain such statements :

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Having such statements included in all files (including XML
configuration files, for instance) may seem cumbersome or unnecessary to
many developers who prefer their files to be short and clear rather than
containing some legalese. How important is this FSF recommendation ?
Should we insert a copyright statement + a copy permission statement in
all generated files ? What do you think ?

Thanks for your advice.

--
Sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Jens W. klein-2]

Am Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:16:11 +0100 schrieb Reinoud van Leeuwen:

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Sig wrote:
>
>> Would anyone mind if I update AGX so that it adds a copyright + license
>> header in *every* file it generates ? including the XML GenericSetup
>> file ?
>
> Who has the copyright on an autogenerated file? Is the person that
> clicks the button considered a 'creator'?
>
> (I am not a copyright lawyer...)

The generator is under GPL, the code templates are and the logic it
generates is also under GPL.

Ergo: The generated code is under GPL as well.

But: The authors of ArchGenXML are allowing automatic relicensing to
another license here:

http://dev.plone.org/archetypes/browser/ArchGenXML/trunk/src/archgenxml/
codesnippets.py#L218

@Sig: please ask before adding another license here! But AGPL is fine.

-- Jensens


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Siggg]

Jens W. Klein a écrit :
> @Sig: please ask before adding another license here! But AGPL is fine.

OK :)

--
Sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Siggg]

Sig a écrit :
> Alexander Limi wrote :
>> I would ask our legal counsel — Software Freedom Law Center — whether  
>> having the license and copyright statement is required in every single  
>> file. I'm pretty sure you can declare a collection of files under the same  
>> license and copyright. But do ask, because they *are* lawyers. ;)

I asked them and referred to the FSF GPL HOWTO which recommends to have
the copyright statement + the copy permission statement (not the full
license) included in all files. Here is their answer :

David B. Ravicher answered :
> If it is reasonably feasible, developers should follow the FSF
> recommendation.  It's not absoutely necessary to preserve one's rights
> in the code, but it can make them stronger and more defensible.  So, to
> make an analogy, is is mandatory that one wear a jacket when it's cold
> outside?  No, there's no law requiring it and you can live without a
> jacket.  But, having a jacket, although burdensome (the cost to buy a
> jacket, the time to get it out of the closet and put it on, etc.), can
> provide benefits by keeping you warm.

My conclusion is that the copyright statement + the copy permission
statement *should* be included in all files generated by AGX even though
this is not required by the law(s).

I will try to commit such changes to the AGX trunk this week unless
anyone objects to it and wants to discuss this further.

--
Sig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Jens W. klein-2]

Am Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:01:09 +0100 schrieb Sig:

> Sig a écrit :
>> Alexander Limi wrote :
>>> I would ask our legal counsel — Software Freedom Law Center — whether
>>> having the license and copyright statement is required in every single
>>> file. I'm pretty sure you can declare a collection of files under the
>>> same license and copyright. But do ask, because they *are* lawyers. ;)
>
> I asked them and referred to the FSF GPL HOWTO which recommends to have
> the copyright statement + the copy permission statement (not the full
> license) included in all files. Here is their answer :
>
> David B. Ravicher answered :
>> If it is reasonably feasible, developers should follow the FSF
>> recommendation.  It's not absoutely necessary to preserve one's rights
>> in the code, but it can make them stronger and more defensible.  So, to
>> make an analogy, is is mandatory that one wear a jacket when it's cold
>> outside?  No, there's no law requiring it and you can live without a
>> jacket.  But, having a jacket, although burdensome (the cost to buy a
>> jacket, the time to get it out of the closet and put it on, etc.), can
>> provide benefits by keeping you warm.
>
> My conclusion is that the copyright statement + the copy permission
> statement *should* be included in all files generated by AGX even though
> this is not required by the law(s).
>
> I will try to commit such changes to the AGX trunk this week unless
> anyone objects to it and wants to discuss this further.
>

Sig, thanks for asking there. So +1 for more copyright statements.

Jensens
--
Jens W. Klein, BlueDynamics Alliance, http://bluedynamics.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users

[Vincent Fretin]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Jens W. Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:01:09 +0100 schrieb Sig:
>> Sig a écrit :
>>> Alexander Limi wrote :
>>>> I would ask our legal counsel — Software Freedom Law Center — whether
>>>> having the license and copyright statement is required in every single
>>>> file. I'm pretty sure you can declare a collection of files under the
>>>> same license and copyright. But do ask, because they *are* lawyers. ;)
>>
>> I asked them and referred to the FSF GPL HOWTO which recommends to have
>> the copyright statement + the copy permission statement (not the full
>> license) included in all files. Here is their answer :
>>
>> David B. Ravicher answered :
>>> If it is reasonably feasible, developers should follow the FSF
>>> recommendation.  It's not absoutely necessary to preserve one's rights
>>> in the code, but it can make them stronger and more defensible.  So, to
>>> make an analogy, is is mandatory that one wear a jacket when it's cold
>>> outside?  No, there's no law requiring it and you can live without a
>>> jacket.  But, having a jacket, although burdensome (the cost to buy a
>>> jacket, the time to get it out of the closet and put it on, etc.), can
>>> provide benefits by keeping you warm.
>>
>> My conclusion is that the copyright statement + the copy permission
>> statement *should* be included in all files generated by AGX even though
>> this is not required by the law(s).
>>
>> I will try to commit such changes to the AGX trunk this week unless
>> anyone objects to it and wants to discuss this further.
>>
>
> Sig, thanks for asking there. So +1 for more copyright statements.

+1 for me too. Go ahead.
--
Vincent Fretin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-users