« Is accumulating Editor in wedge like the one in wordpress a…
Copyrights
What about mobile? »

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Copyrights
« on August 22nd, 2011, 02:40 AM »
I bumped into http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=447676.0 today, makes interesting reading.

Now, we haven't reproduced that header in every file. Apart from the fact it's bloaty, I'm not convinced we need it in full like that, but I DO get the impression that our current header will be seen as bending[1] the rules of the licence, which says:
Quote
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Meanwhile our header is:
Code: [Select]
/**
 * @package wedge
 * @copyright 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org
 * @license http://wedge.org/license/
 *
 * @version 0.1
 */

Note that while we mention SMF 2.0 in the credits page, our licence document (even the one on wedge.org) doesn't and nowhere do we actually credit their copyright, so on strict letter of the licence, we're not compliant. I know it's petty, and I'd like to think they wouldn't kick off about it, but I think it's clear they probably would and I'm not sure I'd call them wrong for it on this one.

We don't need to have vbgamer's full verbosity:
Code: [Select]
/**
 * ezForum http://www.ezforum.com
 * Copyright 2011 ezForum
 * License: BSD
 *
 * Based on:
 * Simple Machines Forum (SMF)
 *
 * @package SMF
 * @author Simple Machines http://www.simplemachines.org
 * @copyright 2011 Simple Machines
 * @license http://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php BSD
 *
 * @version 2.0
 */

But I think we can suitably get away with it thus:
Code: [Select]
/**
 * @package wedge
 * @copyright 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org
 * @license http://wedge.org/license/
 * @copyright Portions: SMF 2.0 courtesy of [url=http://www.simplemachines.org]www.simplemachines.org[/url] under the New BSD licence (http://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php)
 *
 * @version 0.1
 */

One extra line in the header per file and then we're acknowledging their copyright and their licence. Thoughts?
 1. Or breaking them entirely, but I'm ever the optimist here.
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #1, on August 22nd, 2011, 07:17 AM »
I did see that topic yesterday and thought the SMF team would annoy us.

Still. If they claim they're bsd then they should be satisfied with our method. We have license_smf.txt in the root now, remember?

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #2, on August 22nd, 2011, 08:58 AM »
Yes, but we don't actually say anywhere that the file applies...

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #3, on August 22nd, 2011, 09:05 PM »
We can add a link to it on the webpage for the license.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #4, on August 22nd, 2011, 09:10 PM »
Provided that we actually link to it, that is...

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #5, on August 22nd, 2011, 09:19 PM »
It's linked in every file header innit..?

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #6, on August 22nd, 2011, 09:56 PM »
*facepalm* Oops... Yes, yes we do.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #8, on September 20th, 2011, 08:28 AM »
They still insist on copyright notices.

I don't see ourselves retaining the notice in all files -- I mean, some files are new like Subs-Cache.php and have a couple of SMF functions in them -- it doesn't guarantee to me that they should have a "based on" copyright line -- that would imply they created the file in the first place. Meh...

I'm so annoyed, I'm actually tempted to leave the headers as is (just because we can if they're a basic BSD license), and remove the credits for SMF in the credits page to show them who's in charge -- just retain the link to sm.org, the mention that it's based on SMF etc because I'm cool, but remove the list of credits. And if this bothers those of us in the team/friends who are ex-SMF devs, I don't mind crediting them in the Wedge credits section.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #9, on September 20th, 2011, 09:17 AM »
Yes, they are supposed to under the terms of the BSD.

However it gets a bit vague under where the copyright has to be. (The fact that currently their own code isn't even BSD compliant owing to the fact that it's not the proper BSD licence is another matter entirely.)

The wording of the licence says, and I quote:
Quote
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the names of Simple Machines Forum, Simple Machines, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.
So, let's parse that first clause because that's the one that really applies to us:
* redistribution of source code
- any source code derived from their source, meaning and any all code originally belonging to SMF
* must retain the above copyright notice
- must retain a statement to the effect of @copyright 2011 Simple Machines, it does not state anywhere that the @author entry must be retained, but the copyright notice
* this list of conditions
- a verbatim copy of the BSD licence text somewhere
* and the following disclaimers.
- the following two clauses, and the big bold text that says no warranty is implied.

Now, they don't include the licence text on every file, they only include a reference in the file itself, under the license tag.

To me, I think that to comply with their attitude, we need to do the following:
* Alter the @copyright in the file headers to read:
Quote
@copyright 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org, portions copyright 2011 Simple Machines
* Make sure the licence page that we list states that Wedge is derived from SMF 2.0, under the terms of http://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php and that only original SMF code is BSD, while any code that isn't is covered by the Wedge licence

* Make sure the licence file in the package does the same


Then: we have retained the copyright notice, in both source and binary distributions without the weight of multiple tags that are unnecessary. As per above, we're required to keep the copyright and state the terms of licence, and we are following their example in the latter and holding to the former by letter of their licence.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #10, on September 23rd, 2011, 12:21 PM »
Quote from Arantor on September 20th, 2011, 09:17 AM
The wording of the licence says, and I quote:
Quote
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the names of Simple Machines Forum, Simple Machines, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.
So, let's parse that first clause because that's the one that really applies to us:
* redistribution of source code
- any source code derived from their source, meaning and any all code originally belonging to SMF
Including files that are 100% ours, like the addon code or my CSS preparser? Yeah, they have a die('Hacking attempt!') in them, it was written by SMF after all... :lol:

Anyway, it can be read in two ways. The REDISTRIBUTION must retain the copyright stuff. It doesn't say EVERY file should have it, does it...?
Seriously. Their LICENSE file says it must be kept. Then we keep the license file. As for the rest... Well, the only thing common to both the license file and all remaining files is the copyright line indeed. So it can be argued that they want it to be left. I personally don't think it's worth worrying about... It's not like we're hiding that it's SMF to begin with.
I'd tend to ask them.
Guys, either we keep your license file and your copyright line (only that) in all files you created. Or, we only keep your license file, but we acknowledge SMF in the credits area with a link to its site. Your choice.
Quote
* must retain the above copyright notice
- must retain a statement to the effect of @copyright 2011 Simple Machines, it does not state anywhere that the @author entry must be retained, but the copyright notice
Well, the copyright line in the license says "All rights reserved" (which we don't say IIRC... But anyway that line is already implied by copyright to begin with, unless written otherwise.)
Quote
Now, they don't include the licence text on every file, they only include a reference in the file itself, under the license tag.
Which we won't. (?)
Quote
To me, I think that to comply with their attitude, we need to do the following:
* Alter the @copyright in the file headers to read:
Quote
@copyright 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org, portions copyright 2011 Simple Machines
That makes for a long copyright line... And the SM name appears prominently (at the end).
Too bad phpDoc doesn't "support" a @contributor(s) line, but why wouldn't we simply add such a line...?

@copyright © 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org
@author Wedgeward (René-Gilles Deberdt, Peter Spicer)
@contributor contains portions © 2011 Simple Machines
Quote
* Make sure the licence page that we list states that Wedge is derived from SMF 2.0, under the terms of http://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php
It's already done AFAIK. Both in the online license and the txt version.
Quote
and that only original SMF code is BSD, while any code that isn't is covered by the Wedge licence
Dunno if it's specified, but at least it's implied.
Quote
Then: we have retained the copyright notice, in both source and binary distributions without the weight of multiple tags that are unnecessary. As per above, we're required to keep the copyright and state the terms of licence, and we are following their example in the latter and holding to the former by letter of their licence.
If we do that, then we don't really need to keep their names in the readable credits... I want to keep occurrences of the name "SMF" to a minimum.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #11, on September 23rd, 2011, 12:31 PM »
Quote
Including files that are 100% ours, like the addon code or my CSS preparser?
No, any files that are 100% ours can forgo that line. (You know, we really should change that warning to something other than 'Hacking attempt', then we solve that problem too.)
Quote
Anyway, it can be read in two ways. The REDISTRIBUTION must retain the copyright stuff. It doesn't say EVERY file should have it, does it...?
Seriously. Their LICENSE file says it must be kept. Then we keep the license file. As for the rest... Well, the only thing common to both the license file and all remaining files is the copyright line indeed. So it can be argued that they want it to be left. I personally don't think it's worth worrying about... It's not like we're hiding that it's SMF to begin with.
I'd tend to ask them.
Guys, either we keep your license file and your copyright line (only that) in all files you created. Or, we only keep your license file, but we acknowledge SMF in the credits area with a link to its site. Your choice.
It's a matter of debate, but as far as I'm concerned, provided that we retain some semblance of mentioning their copyright per file, and the licence file states that the code is based off SMF's, we have fulfilled our criteria because it's keeping the terms of their licence intact and in the distribution.

Any code that's not theirs or derived from theirs can safely exclude mentioning them, which does indeed cover pretty much all of Subs-Cache, all of ManageAddons, media/* from what I remember of it and probably more besides.
Quote
That makes for a long copyright line... And the SM name appears prominently (at the end).
Too bad phpDoc doesn't "support" a @contributor(s) line, but why wouldn't we simply add such a line...?

@copyright © 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org
@author Wedgeward (René-Gilles Deberdt, Peter Spicer)
@contributor contains portions © 2011 Simple Machines
It's only an issue if someone then actually proceeds to build off phpDoc doc files off it, though I guess we might do that in the future. The argument is that if they're contributing, they're validly part of the copyright normally anyway. I also think I'd rather have one long-ish line than two for the purposes of noting copyright.
Quote
Dunno if it's specified, but at least it's implied.
For the avoidance of doubt it should be specified.
Quote
If we do that, then we don't really need to keep their names in the readable credits... I want to keep occurrences of the name "SMF" to a minimum.
We don't *have* to keep their names in the credits at all, there is absolutely no requirement to do so, given that as far as I'm concerned we would have complied with the licence by mentioning it via their copyright and the licence file.

I just think it's kind of nice to leave it though.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #12, on September 23rd, 2011, 01:25 PM »
Unrelated-but-not-worth-a-topic-search™: are you still of the opinion that you prefer domain.com/profile/User/ to domain.com/~User/...? I've reworked the code to use /profile/ instead (I mourned the idea long enough that it doesn't particularly bother me now), I can commit it if you want.
Quote from Arantor on September 23rd, 2011, 12:31 PM
Quote
Including files that are 100% ours, like the addon code or my CSS preparser?
No, any files that are 100% ours can forgo that line. (You know, we really should change that warning to something other than 'Hacking attempt', then we solve that problem too.)
"Hey guys, you used $modSettings in your code! You should add a copyright!"
Anyone remember the "shared memory space" thingy in GPL? :lol:

"Hacking attempt" -- agreed. any suggestion to replace this? "You can not run this PHP file directly"? "You must run this action through index.php"? "If I'm a chicken, then you're my egg"?
Quote
It's a matter of debate, but as far as I'm concerned, provided that we retain some semblance of mentioning their copyright per file,
Weren't you the one who removed it to begin with? :niark:
Quote
Any code that's not theirs or derived from theirs can safely exclude mentioning them, which does indeed cover pretty much all of Subs-Cache, all of ManageAddons, media/* from what I remember of it and probably more besides.
Yeah, a few more files.
We could even split some files in two just for the pleasure of not mentioning them in the new one... :lol:
Quote
It's only an issue if someone then actually proceeds to build off phpDoc doc files off it, though I guess we might do that in the future. The argument is that if they're contributing, they're validly part of the copyright normally anyway. I also think I'd rather have one long-ish line than two for the purposes of noting copyright.
@copyright based on portions © 2011 Simple Machines, rewritten by Wedgeward © 2010-2011, wedge.org
@copyright © 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org (uses portions © 2011 Simple Machines)

Oh, and where do we define what Wedgeward is...? Only in the license file?
Quote
We don't *have* to keep their names in the credits at all, there is absolutely no requirement to do so, given that as far as I'm concerned we would have complied with the licence by mentioning it via their copyright and the licence file.
Yes.
Quote
I just think it's kind of nice to leave it though.
Well, I guess it all depends on how it unfolds eventually.
One thing for sure though, I'm still bothered by the list of SMF developers. I mean, it may be confusing. If people want the list of SMF developers, they can just follow our link to sm.org and download SMF2 for themselves... And those who contributed to Wedge are already credited in our Consultant list. Dunno.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Copyrights
« Reply #13, on September 23rd, 2011, 02:27 PM »
Quote
are you still of the opinion that you prefer domain.com/profile/User/ to domain.com/~User/...? I've reworked the code to use /profile/ instead (I mourned the idea long enough that it doesn't particularly bother me now), I can commit it if you want.
Yes, I am. It's not like we see ~name URLs much these days, so it's mostly the old-timers like us who'll remember it. Go for it :)
Quote
"Hey guys, you used $modSettings in your code! You should add a copyright!"
It really wouldn't phase me to rename $modSettings, $settings and $options to something more meaningful actually.
Quote
"Hacking attempt" -- agreed. any suggestion to replace this? "You can not run this PHP file directly"? "You must run this action through index.php"? "If I'm a chicken, then you're my egg"?
'You cannot run this PHP file directly.' works for me, since legitimate users shouldn't anyway... Buried in at least one of the WD files is 'If only you could draw like a drunken monkey...' as the equivalent text, interestingly enough.

Alternatively, a few more creative choices:
I am the sin, and the fire, and the darkness!
It's been a long time since anyone's said no to you, isn't it?
Spoilers!
It's what's in the dark. It's what's always in the dark.
We've got to go. This reality is sealing itself off, forever.

:lol:
Quote
Weren't you the one who removed it to begin with?
Yes, because I originally didn't suspect they'd be quite as hardline as they seem to be about it.
Quote
Yeah, a few more files.
We could even split some files in two just for the pleasure of not mentioning them in the new one...
Bwhahha, sounds like a plan :P
Quote
@copyright based on portions © 2011 Simple Machines, rewritten by Wedgeward © 2010-2011, wedge.org
@copyright © 2010-2011 Wedgeward, wedge.org (uses portions © 2011 Simple Machines)

Oh, and where do we define what Wedgeward is...? Only in the license file?
I'd suggest the latter line, it doesn't put as much emphasis on SM as the first one does, IMO.

Same argument, where is Simple Machines defined? There's a link to wedge.org, and it's available there, so I'd say that's fine as is.
Quote
Well, I guess it all depends on how it unfolds eventually.
I doubt it'll change any time soon. There's still going to be hate (even as recently as a few weeks ago, a certain person was calling us assholes and telling the world that Aeva's badly written, until Motoko told him that SAVE was badly written, though in a manner that implied he thought Aeva was as well)

The only way the hate is going to change is if we make another move towards being open - even then I doubt the true hardcore fanbois will ever change their mind. But I'm not that bothered to be honest, I thought it was a nice touch of respect for their contributions to leave it in, much as I have with WedgeDesk's credits, but I have no plans about removing the credits there even though I consider WD pretty much a hostile fork.[1]
 1. The 'hostility' such as it is, is totally on my side. It's not even actually hostile, it's just simply not a friendly fork contributing code back to SD, even though I am aware that some of the code I posted in private to help out has since been reposted publicly. I don't really mind because I doubt anyone else was going to step up to the plate to achieve what needed to be done, but it'll be solved and solved better in WD.
« Is accumulating Editor in wedge like the one in wordpress a…
What about mobile? »