1 2011-02-26T00:02:34 <dreimark> ok
2 2011-02-26T00:14:47 <MattMaker> whew, sorry for the delay. I got fixated on ThomasWaldmann's question about licensing, and so I did a bunch of research: http://moinmo.in/MattMaker/SomeFindingsOnLicensing
3 2011-02-26T00:17:02 <MattMaker> summary: if we want to "import" mobwrite, we must upgrade to GNU v3. We *can* freely upgrade to GNU v3 because MoinMoin's current license is "GNU v2 or any later version".
4 2011-02-26T00:17:12 <MattMaker> *GPL v3
5 2011-02-26T00:18:00 <ThomasWaldmann> yes, i also think we are allowed to upgrade to v3
6 2011-02-26T00:18:21 <ThomasWaldmann> but, that will get us into trouble if we want to incorporate gpl v2 licensed code
7 2011-02-26T00:18:41 <ThomasWaldmann> so the situation has changed, but isn't necessary better
8 2011-02-26T00:21:45 <CIA-46> Reimar Bauer <rb.proj AT googlemail DOT com> default * 20:153ac1783636 2.0/ (3 files in 2 dirs): script.maint.meta: refactored to flask-script and renamed to set_meta
9 2011-02-26T00:21:45 <ThomasWaldmann> s/v3/v3 or later/
10 2011-02-26T00:21:54 <ThomasWaldmann> MattMaker: ^^
11 2011-02-26T00:23:13 <MattMaker> ThomasWaldmann only in cases where we want to include a GPLv2-only licensed code
12 2011-02-26T00:23:25 <MattMaker> "GPL v2 or any later" is still ok
13 2011-02-26T00:23:39 <ThomasWaldmann> and we are also in trouble if a) moin is gpl v2 or later, b) we incorporate some v2-only code, c) we incorporate some >=v3 or apache v2 code
14 2011-02-26T00:24:43 <MattMaker> is that likely to happen? I read that most big projects have the "or later" clause
15 2011-02-26T00:24:46 <ThomasWaldmann> yes, i think we agree here
16 2011-02-26T00:25:05 <ThomasWaldmann> i don't know. looks like a systematic review is needed
17 2011-02-26T00:25:55 <MattMaker> some projects make contributors sign an agreement
18 2011-02-26T00:25:57 <ThomasWaldmann> btw, what I'ld want to do in any case is have the file header look like:
19 2011-02-26T00:26:05 <ThomasWaldmann> # (c) stuff
20 2011-02-26T00:26:13 <ThomasWaldmann> # license stuff ...
21 2011-02-26T00:26:16 <ThomasWaldmann> """
22 2011-02-26T00:26:26 <ThomasWaldmann> doc string - no (c) or license stuff here
23 2011-02-26T00:26:29 <ThomasWaldmann> """
24 2011-02-26T00:27:18 <ThomasWaldmann> because from that, we can generate nice api reference without repeating the (c) and license stuff endlessly
25 2011-02-26T00:27:55 <dreimark> or we should hack the sphinx script
26 2011-02-26T00:28:02 <ThomasWaldmann> and if the (c) and license comment could be minimal without legal disadvantage, that would be great
27 2011-02-26T00:28:34 <dreimark> minimum license string should be in each file
28 2011-02-26T00:29:10 <ThomasWaldmann> for my taste, something like this would be perfect:
29 2011-02-26T00:29:46 <ThomasWaldmann> # For Copyright information please see AUTHORS file, for license information, please see LICENSE file.
30 2011-02-26T00:31:17 <ThomasWaldmann> (inclusion by reference, not by copy&paste)
31 2011-02-26T00:32:13 <ThomasWaldmann> waldi: ^^ any clue about this?
32 2011-02-26T00:32:17 <MattMaker> yeah, I don't know why they think that huge block should go on every page
33 2011-02-26T00:32:43 <MattMaker> I like the short form like they suggest here for outputting from a program: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto
34 2011-02-26T00:33:08 <MattMaker> (the shorter "interaction" part)
35 2011-02-26T00:33:32 * ThomasWaldmann always gets a hate feeling when looking at some source code and there is a screenful license crap, but not a single line about what the code in that file is about
36 2011-02-26T00:34:18 <MattMaker> and maybe such a file would only be an empty class definition with "pass"
37 2011-02-26T00:35:04 <MattMaker> hmm, I guess that page I linked does also offer "each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found."
38 2011-02-26T00:35:14 <MattMaker> but that this is not "safer"
39 2011-02-26T00:35:20 <MattMaker> *safest
40 2011-02-26T00:37:01 <MattMaker> there is also the GNU FDL for documentation
41 2011-02-26T00:38:00 <ThomasWaldmann> any chance we could get rid of years and authors names from each file?
42 2011-02-26T00:43:05 <dreimark> that is ok for me, i just don't want to make plagiate to easy
43 2011-02-26T00:43:42 <MattMaker> in the U.S., it is optional since March 1, 1989 ... but you would risk files being taken out of context and misused, as dreimark mentions
44 2011-02-26T00:44:29 <ThomasWaldmann> MattMaker: if you want to misuse something, you can always do it (just remove license/authors from the file)
45 2011-02-26T00:44:39 <MattMaker> but innocently
46 2011-02-26T00:44:48 <dreimark> if a file from us to an other project is moved which has the same line on each script
47 2011-02-26T00:45:01 <dreimark> it does not mean both had the same license
48 2011-02-26T00:45:16 <ThomasWaldmann> LICENSE.MoinMoin? :)
49 2011-02-26T00:46:06 *** grzywacz
50 2011-02-26T00:46:38 <MattMaker> I do like your one-line "see AUTHORS/LICENSE file" option though
51 2011-02-26T00:49:09 <dreimark> sphinx itselfs has copyright and license in scripts
52 2011-02-26T00:49:11 <MattMaker> "A single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of who owns copyright in the individual contributions or whether they were published previously. However, a separate contribution to a collective work can bear its own notice of copyright, and it is sometimes advantageous to use a separate
53 2011-02-26T00:49:11 <MattMaker> notice. A separate notice informs the public of the identity of the owner of the contribution." -- more U.S. verbiage
54 2011-02-26T00:51:25 <MattMaker> looks like U.S. law also offers the option of putting the copyright notice at the end of a file
55 2011-02-26T00:51:28 <dreimark> jinja2 has also copyright and license
56 2011-02-26T00:51:45 <dreimark> https://github.com/mitsuhiko/jinja2/blob/master/jinja2/_stringdefs.py
57 2011-02-26T00:52:13 <dreimark> :copyright: (c) 2010 by the Jinja Team.
58 2011-02-26T00:52:14 <dreimark> :license: BSD, see LICENSE for more details.
59 2011-02-26T00:52:48 <dreimark> i would prefer something similiar
60 2011-02-26T00:53:06 <dreimark> gn
61 2011-02-26T00:53:45 <MattMaker> international info: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_notice
62 2011-02-26T00:54:37 <MattMaker> oops not international sorry
63 2011-02-26T00:56:46 <ThomasWaldmann> dreimark: maybe comparing with a bsd project is not the best, because bsd is mostly "do what you want" anyway
64 2011-02-26T00:57:39 <waldi> MattMaker: the fike is not "interactive"
65 2011-02-26T00:58:06 <MattMaker> waldi I understand, I'm just saying I liked the form of it
66 2011-02-26T01:00:01 <waldi> ThomasWaldmann: and there are a large amount of variants
67 2011-02-26T01:00:52 <ThomasWaldmann> waldi: "the fike"?
68 2011-02-26T01:01:08 <waldi> ThomasWaldmann: he understood s,ike,ile,
69 2011-02-26T01:01:48 <ThomasWaldmann> ah, yes
70 2011-02-26T01:02:08 <ThomasWaldmann> but lawyers are used to inclusion by reference, aren't they?
71 2011-02-26T01:03:07 <waldi> most projects uses the explicit form, because noone can say they incorporated it by accident
72 2011-02-26T01:04:08 <ThomasWaldmann> well, if we used AUTHORS.MoinMoin and LICENSE.MoinMoin, that would avoid "accidents" quite safely
73 2011-02-26T01:05:36 <waldi> nope. this only works if all it bundled, but not if the parts are seperated
74 2011-02-26T01:07:28 <waldi> if you find a file with this reference, you don't know which version of it may apply
75 2011-02-26T01:13:59 <ThomasWaldmann> ok, we need content-hash addressing :D
76 2011-02-26T01:14:53 <MattMaker> you mean like code signing? a bit excessive :D
77 2011-02-26T01:15:31 <ThomasWaldmann> no, to identify uniquely some specific content (some specific LICENSE file)
78 2011-02-26T01:15:46 <MattMaker> ahh
79 2011-02-26T01:16:08 <waldi> just use the checksum with google ...
80 2011-02-26T01:16:17 <MattMaker> well, if it's versioned like GPL you can just say GPL version X
81 2011-02-26T01:16:42 <MattMaker> another thought: http://haacked.com/archive/2006/01/26/WhoOwnstheCopyrightforAnOpenSourceProject.aspx
82 2011-02-26T01:19:13 <MattMaker> and this told me some things I did not know: http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/collab.html
83 2011-02-26T01:23:54 <MattMaker> bbl
84 2011-02-26T02:01:16 *** Pranav_rcmas
85 2011-02-26T02:05:50 *** Pranav_rcmas1
86 2011-02-26T02:14:18 *** Pranav_rcmas1
87 2011-02-26T02:27:11 *** Pranav_rcmas1
88 2011-02-26T03:15:51 *** Pranav_rcmas1
89 2011-02-26T05:31:31 *** Pranav_rcmas
90 2011-02-26T05:39:08 *** Pranav_rcmas2
91 2011-02-26T05:41:16 *** Pranav_rcmas
92 2011-02-26T05:58:16 *** kasun
93 2011-02-26T06:26:56 *** Marchael
94 2011-02-26T06:58:51 *** MattMaker
95 2011-02-26T07:04:28 *** Pranav_rcmas2
96 2011-02-26T07:05:14 *** Marchael
97 2011-02-26T07:09:20 *** Marchael
98 2011-02-26T07:13:12 *** Marchael
99 2011-02-26T07:17:46 *** Pranav_rcmas2
100 2011-02-26T08:04:53 *** Pranav_rcmas2
101 2011-02-26T08:17:21 *** Pranav_rcmas2
102 2011-02-26T08:17:27 *** kasun
103 2011-02-26T08:18:47 *** Matt
104 2011-02-26T08:19:02 *** Matt
105 2011-02-26T08:23:17 *** Pranav_rcmas2
106 2011-02-26T08:26:52 *** Pranav_rcmas
107 2011-02-26T08:38:05 *** Pranav_rcmas
108 2011-02-26T09:52:47 *** greg_f
109 2011-02-26T10:07:52 *** Pranav_rcmas
110 2011-02-26T10:27:27 *** TripleEntendre
111 2011-02-26T11:55:06 *** grzywacz
112 2011-02-26T12:07:41 *** Pranav_rcmas
113 2011-02-26T12:45:59 <ThomasWaldmann> moin
114 2011-02-26T13:24:30 *** Pranav_rcmas
115 2011-02-26T13:40:32 *** Pranav_rcmas2
116 2011-02-26T13:42:21 *** Pranav_rcmas2
117 2011-02-26T13:42:53 *** Pranav_rcmas
118 2011-02-26T13:43:40 *** Pranav_rcmas
119 2011-02-26T15:38:29 *** Pranav_rcmas
120 2011-02-26T15:51:34 *** Pranav_rcmas
121 2011-02-26T15:58:29 *** Pranav_rcmas
122 2011-02-26T16:10:16 *** Marchael
123 2011-02-26T16:10:34 *** Marchael
124 2011-02-26T16:19:53 *** Pranav_rcmas1
125 2011-02-26T16:25:06 *** Pranav_rcmas1
126 2011-02-26T16:37:58 *** Pranav_rcmas1
127 2011-02-26T17:12:23 *** kasun
128 2011-02-26T17:26:39 *** izibi
129 2011-02-26T17:35:40 *** cosmos_thought
130 2011-02-26T17:35:46 <cosmos_thought> huhu moin!
131 2011-02-26T17:35:53 <cosmos_thought> :D
132 2011-02-26T17:50:34 *** izibi_
133 2011-02-26T17:51:56 *** izibi
134 2011-02-26T18:32:32 *** izibi
135 2011-02-26T18:33:01 *** izibi_
136 2011-02-26T18:44:33 *** greg_f
137 2011-02-26T18:51:36 *** Pranav_rcmas1
138 2011-02-26T19:39:34 <ThomasWaldmann> re
139 2011-02-26T19:46:44 *** cosmos_thought
140 2011-02-26T21:09:18 * ThomasWaldmann writes some tool to do some global changes in the source header
141 2011-02-26T21:24:00 *** Marchael
142 2011-02-26T21:26:44 *** Marchael
143 2011-02-26T21:26:59 *** RogerHaase
144 2011-02-26T21:46:46 <CIA-46> Thomas Waldmann <tw AT waldmann-edv DOT de> default * 21:fe47d0977895 2.0/MoinMoin/ (165 files in 42 dirs): remove coding lines from pure ascii files
145 2011-02-26T21:46:48 <CIA-46> Thomas Waldmann <tw AT waldmann-edv DOT de> default * 22:54719ed69252 2.0/MoinMoin/config/default.py: recode default.py from iso-8859-1 to utf-8
146 2011-02-26T22:07:30 <RogerHaase> ThomasWaldmann: There are several lines in common.js with trailing blanks -- is it OK to remove these for consistency?
147 2011-02-26T22:11:57 <ThomasWaldmann> sure
148 2011-02-26T22:24:53 *** kasun
149 2011-02-26T22:29:38 *** Trip_
150 2011-02-26T22:37:13 <RogerHaase> ThomasWaldmann: I added a bug fix for the Firefox word break link-breaking problem to bitbucket.
151 2011-02-26T22:40:47 <ThomasWaldmann> ah, great :)
152 2011-02-26T22:58:57 <ThomasWaldmann> xorAxAx: MoinMoin/util/thread_monitor.py
153 2011-02-26T22:59:26 <ThomasWaldmann> @license: GNU GPL Version 2
154 2011-02-26T22:59:26 <moinBot> ThomasWaldmann: Error: "license:" is not a valid command.
155 2011-02-26T23:00:03 *** RogerHaase
156 2011-02-26T23:00:22 <ThomasWaldmann> xorAxAx: should this be "Version 2 or later" (like the rest of moin)?
157 2011-02-26T23:02:08 <ThomasWaldmann> (the usual string is "@license: GNU GPL, see COPYING for details")
158 2011-02-26T23:02:43 <ThomasWaldmann> which has to be clarified also, because COPYING is just the GPL v2, but moin has always been "v2 or later")
159 2011-02-26T23:04:04 <vpv> btw, I think Fedora's guidelines say that if you have just "GPL" in the source file, then it'll be taken as GPLv1 or later, no matter what's in COPYING
160 2011-02-26T23:04:41 <ThomasWaldmann> oh, even worse X)
161 2011-02-26T23:08:49 <vpv> "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. " Moin may have something in a README file, I can't remember off the top of my head
162 2011-02-26T23:10:24 <vpv> ah, yes. moin has specified GPLv2 or later in README, which is fine. then what I said does not apply.
163 2011-02-26T23:14:25 <ThomasWaldmann> yes, we state it in README
164 2011-02-26T23:14:45 <ThomasWaldmann> i am trying right now to bring it into a more consistent and clear state
165 2011-02-26T23:16:35 *** m4k3r
166 2011-02-26T23:17:28 <ThomasWaldmann> vpv: I am thinking about referring to LICENSE.txt for now, and tell there the usual "put it under GPL v2 or later, no warranty" paragraphs
167 2011-02-26T23:23:19 *** ThomasWaldmann
168 2011-02-26T23:23:27 *** ThomasWaldmann
169 2011-02-26T23:23:27 *** ThomasWaldmann
170 2011-02-26T23:36:05 <ThomasWaldmann> xorAxAx: ^^
171 2011-02-26T23:51:22 *** cosmos_thought
172
