Stream: coq-community devs & users

Topic: templates choice of open source license


view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:02):

on closer reading, I don't think CC-0 or Unlicense is a good choice, e.g., see the following: https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:11):

Indeed, I am aware of this issue with CC-0, also mentioned by the FSF here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0

If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses.

The Unlicense doesn't have this problem and is the copyright dedication listed by GitHub at https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ but the FSF prefers CC-0 to it because it would be more mature: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Unlicense

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:13):

OK, in this case it's between Unlicense and MIT in my mind

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:14):

MIT has the hassle of retaining the copyright clause, but this could perhaps be done by just inserting the copyright header into the YAML files?

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:15):

My initial preference for a public domain dedication was because templates were examples that a user would adapt for their project, and I didn't want to impose a licensing constraint on this project. But now that templates are a tool for generating files, I think it is reasonable to consider that the scope of the license is the template files only but it does not apply to the generated files at all.

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:16):

Cf. my comment

As long as it is understood that generating a file from a template is not the same as modifying a template and doesn't require to follow the license.

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:17):

right, but isn't that already implicit? I think the mustache programs already have a clause for that?

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:18):

but this is arguably one point in favor of Unlicense, since we wouldn't have to insert any special clause to clarify that, e.g., "generated files are not under MIT" in that case

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:19):

Right

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:20):

OK, I will propose Unlicense and ping in all repo contributors, then we could wait a week or so maybe if they give the go-ahead, or what do you think?

view this post on Zulip Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:22):

Sounds good

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:47):

not adding a license at the split from manifesto was an organizational mistake (by me), but it's kinda hard to violate CC-0...

view this post on Zulip Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:49):

I didn't expect to be running community stuff, just trying to research this proof engineering thing :slight_smile:


Last updated: Feb 04 2023 at 02:03 UTC