Copyright/licensing info ?

Copyright/licensing info ?

[B Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3665 bytes --]

I noticed this change and it made me wonder...

So, what will the final license/copyright be ?  There's precious
little text here now.

Is there, or will there, be some cohesive mapping of licensing
boundaries ?  That is,
POSIX provides a clean API and licensing boundary for user programs. 
The hypervisor
states (somewhere, I think) ahout it's boundary with callers.  Are these changes
to copyright/license following a plan ?  I assume that they are, and would like
to understand the overall plan for which systems/subsystems/components are
to be under what license.

Thanks,
-b



--- a/xen/include/public/io/xenbus.h	Sat Dec 10 14:57:11 2005
+++ b/xen/include/public/io/xenbus.h	Sat Dec 10 15:07:03 2005
@@ -4,28 +4,6 @@
  * Xenbus protocol details.
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2005 XenSource Ltd.
- *
- * This file may be distributed separately from the Linux kernel, or
- * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following
- * license:
- *
- * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
- * copy of this source file (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
- * restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
- * merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,
- * and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject
- * to the following conditions:
- *
- * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
- * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- *
- * 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 OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.
  */

 #ifndef _XEN_XENBUS_H

--- a/xen/include/public/io/xs_wire.h	Sat Dec 10 14:57:11 2005
+++ b/xen/include/public/io/xs_wire.h	Sat Dec 10 15:07:03 2005
@@ -2,27 +2,6 @@
  * Details of the "wire" protocol between Xen Store Daemon and client
  * library or guest kernel.
  * Copyright (C) 2005 Rusty Russell IBM Corporation
- *
- * This file may be distributed separately from the Linux kernel, or
- * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following license:
- *
- * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
- * of this source file (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
- * restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
- * merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,
- * and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
- * the following conditions:
- *
- * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
- * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- *
- * 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 OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.
  */

 #ifndef _XS_WIRE_H

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5518 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Keir Fraser]

Those comments were removed because there si a single license for all 
Xen public interface header files in xen/include/public/COPYING.

  -- Keir

On 14 Dec 2005, at 15:13, B Thomas wrote:

> I noticed this change and it made me wonder...
>
> So, what will the final license/copyright be ?  There's precious 
> little text here now.
>
> Is there, or will there, be some cohesive mapping of licensing 
> boundaries ?  That is,
>
> POSIX provides a clean API and licensing boundary for user programs.  
> The hypervisor
> states (somewhere, I think) ahout it's boundary with callers.  Are 
> these changes
> to copyright/license following a plan ?  I assume that they are, and 
> would like
>
> to understand the overall plan for which systems/subsystems/components 
> are
> to be under what license.
>
> Thanks,
> -b
>
>
>
> --- a/xen/include/public/io/xenbus.h        Sat Dec 10 14:57:11 2005
>
> +++ b/xen/include/public/io/xenbus.h    Sat Dec 10 15:07:03 2005
> @@ -4,28 +4,6 @@
>   * Xenbus protocol details.
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2005 XenSource Ltd.
>
> - *
> - * This file may be distributed separately from the Linux kernel, or
> - * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the following
>
> - * license:
> - *
> - * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person 
> obtaining a
> - * copy of this source file (the "Software"), to deal in the Software 
> without
>
> - * restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, 
> modify,
> - * merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the 
> Software,
>
> - * and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, 
> subject
> - * to the following conditions:
> - *
>
> - * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be 
> included in
> - * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> - *
> - * 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 OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.
>   */
>
>  #ifndef _XEN_XENBUS_H
> --- a/xen/include/public/io/xs_wire.h   Sat Dec 10 14:57:11 2005
>
> +++ b/xen/include/public/io/xs_wire.h   Sat Dec 10 15:07:03 2005
> @@ -2,27 +2,6 @@
>   * Details of the "wire" protocol between Xen Store Daemon and client
>
>   * library or guest kernel.
>   * Copyright (C) 2005 Rusty Russell IBM Corporation
> - *
> - * This file may be distributed separately from the Linux kernel, or
>
> - * incorporated into other software packages, subject to the 
> following license:
> - *
> - * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person 
> obtaining a copy
>
> - * of this source file (the "Software"), to deal in the Software 
> without
> - * restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, 
> modify,
>
> - * merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the 
> Software,
> - * and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, 
> subject to
>
> - * the following conditions:
> - *
> - * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be 
> included in
>
> - * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> - *
> - * 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 OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.
>   */
>
>  #ifndef _XS_WIRE_H
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Sean Dague]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:56:15PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
> Those comments were removed because there si a single license for all 
> Xen public interface header files in xen/include/public/COPYING.

In my limitted understanding of US Copyright laws, there needs to be a
license stanza in every file, otherwise default copyright is assumed.  At
least as a safety measure there should probably be a header in each of those
files.

	-Sean

-- 
__________________________________________________________________

Sean Dague                                       Mid-Hudson Valley
sean at dague dot net                            Linux Users Group
http://dague.net                                 http://mhvlug.org

There is no silver bullet.  Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
__________________________________________________________________

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Keir Fraser]

On 14 Dec 2005, at 18:35, Sean Dague wrote:

>> Those comments were removed because there si a single license for all
>> Xen public interface header files in xen/include/public/COPYING.
>
> In my limitted understanding of US Copyright laws, there needs to be a
> license stanza in every file, otherwise default copyright is assumed.  
> At
> least as a safety measure there should probably be a header in each of 
> those
> files.

I removed a license string, not a copyright string. What would a 
'default license' be? Covering multiple files with a single COPYING 
file seems standard practise (e.g., Linux).

  -- Keir

Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Sean Dague]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:02:11PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
> On 14 Dec 2005, at 18:35, Sean Dague wrote:
> 
> >>Those comments were removed because there si a single license for all
> >>Xen public interface header files in xen/include/public/COPYING.
> >
> >In my limitted understanding of US Copyright laws, there needs to be a
> >license stanza in every file, otherwise default copyright is assumed.  
> >At
> >least as a safety measure there should probably be a header in each of 
> >those
> >files.
> 
> I removed a license string, not a copyright string. What would a 
> 'default license' be? Covering multiple files with a single COPYING 
> file seems standard practise (e.g., Linux).

Sorry, default copyright, not default license.  

First, IANAL, so this might not be 100% correct, however, in my
understanding of US copyright (which applies to at least some portion of the
Xen code), it goes something like this.

In the US everything caries implicit copyright.  To ensure that something
remains open source software, it needs to carry a license statement in that
file.  An external file referencing headers saying "Those files are under
this license" isn't necessarily adequate.

In the "better safe than sorry" realm, it would be good to have a BSD
license stanza in each of the header files, if that is the final license
they will be under.

	-Sean

-- 
__________________________________________________________________

Sean Dague                                       Mid-Hudson Valley
sean at dague dot net                            Linux Users Group
http://dague.net                                 http://mhvlug.org

There is no silver bullet.  Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
__________________________________________________________________

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:31:00PM -0500, Sean Dague (sean@dague.net) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:02:11PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > 
> > On 14 Dec 2005, at 18:35, Sean Dague wrote:
> > 
> > >>Those comments were removed because there si a single license for all
> > >>Xen public interface header files in xen/include/public/COPYING.
> > >
> > >In my limitted understanding of US Copyright laws, there needs to be a
> > >license stanza in every file, otherwise default copyright is assumed.  
> > >At
> > >least as a safety measure there should probably be a header in each of 
> > >those
> > >files.
> > 
> > I removed a license string, not a copyright string. What would a 
> > 'default license' be? Covering multiple files with a single COPYING 
> > file seems standard practise (e.g., Linux).
> 
> Sorry, default copyright, not default license.  
> 
> First, IANAL, so this might not be 100% correct, however, in my
> understanding of US copyright (which applies to at least some portion of the
> Xen code), it goes something like this.
> 
> In the US everything caries implicit copyright.  To ensure that something
> remains open source software, it needs to carry a license statement in that
> file.  An external file referencing headers saying "Those files are under
> this license" isn't necessarily adequate.

<IANAL>

Your understanding is partially correct.  Without explicit licensing
terms, relevant copyright law holds.  In the US, that's 17 USC,
particularly sections 106 & 106a as limited by 107 - 122.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17_10_1.html

The GPL license terms need not be specifically attached to any
given file.  In the case of most li It's convention (and sometimes
useful) to note the license used in file headers, but not strictly
necessary.  The usual GPL text itself includes guidelines on applying
the GPL to a program ("How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"),
which reference, but don't specifically include the full text of the
GPL.  Note that these are _guidelines_ and not _requirements_.



One project with which I'm familar had a discussion of a similar issue,
whether or not a copy of the GPL needed to be present on the system when
it booted.  As a bootable floppy-based distro, space was at a premium,
and as a feature was bidirectional regeneration of the distro -- the
packed form could be unpacked to boot a system, the unpacked form could
be modified and repacked, carrying one (or worse, multiple) copies of
the licensing files was seen as burdensome.  Most of the details are in
private correspondence.

Guidance from the FSF was that a separate license file in the download
archive was sufficient.  This is what you'll find today when you
download Tom's Root Boot:

    http://www.toms.net/rb/
    http://www.toms.net/rb/download.html

Another project, the Debian Project, includes a reference copy of the
GNU GPL in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, which was also deemed
sufficient by the FSF:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=78341

While some GPL'd Debian packages include the full text of the GPL, the
bulk of them don't.  At 18K per toss, and roughly 85% of Debian's nearly
19,000 software packages under the GPL, that's 276 MB of space savings,
per arch, per release, on Debian mirrors and installs.

 
> In the "better safe than sorry" realm, it would be good to have a BSD
> license stanza in each of the header files, if that is the final
> license they will be under.

Useful, but to my understanding not strictly necessary so long as
licensing text clearly defining what is covered is included in
distributions of the work.

</IANAL>


Cheers.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <karsten@xensource.com>
XenSource, Inc.
2300 Geng Road #250                                +1 650.798.5900 x259
Palo Alto, CA 94303                                +1 650.493.1579 fax

Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Charles Duffy]

Sean Dague wrote:
> In the US everything caries implicit copyright.  To ensure that something
> remains open source software, it needs to carry a license statement in that
> file.  An external file referencing headers saying "Those files are under
> this license" isn't necessarily adequate.

I'm not a lawyer, and to the extent that I've had formal legal training 
it focused on UCITA rather than intellectual property law, but I'm quite 
certain that the below is correct:

The default case for a copyrighted work is that no license exists at 
all, and thus all the actions regulated by copyright are prohibited 
unless permission to take such actions is otherwise explicitly granted. 
Granting a license to make use of a work otherwise does *not* require 
that the license itself be referred to within the work -- the license 
grant could be in an *entirely separate contract* negotiated between the 
copyright holder and the licensee with no connection (in terms of being 
packaged together) whatsoever.

Now, the copyright statement -- yes, you want that to be part of the 
same document. As for the license, however, I'm quite certain that it 
does not need to be the same document.

Re: Re: Copyright/licensing info ?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:53:07PM -0600, Charles Duffy (cduffy@spamcop.net) wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> >In the US everything caries implicit copyright.  To ensure that something
> >remains open source software, it needs to carry a license statement in that
> >file.  An external file referencing headers saying "Those files are under
> >this license" isn't necessarily adequate.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, and to the extent that I've had formal legal training 
> it focused on UCITA rather than intellectual property law, but I'm quite 
> certain that the below is correct:
> 
> The default case for a copyrighted work is that no license exists at 
> all, and thus all the actions regulated by copyright are prohibited 
> unless permission to take such actions is otherwise explicitly granted. 
> Granting a license to make use of a work otherwise does *not* require 
> that the license itself be referred to within the work -- the license 
> grant could be in an *entirely separate contract* negotiated between the 
> copyright holder and the licensee with no connection (in terms of being 
> packaged together) whatsoever.
> 
> Now, the copyright statement -- yes, you want that to be part of the 
> same document. As for the license, however, I'm quite certain that it 
> does not need to be the same document.

<IANAL>

Neither a license nor a copyright statement are _necessary_.  Current
Berne Convention laws grant copyright by default.  Copyright,
"circle-C", and phonogram / "circle-P" notations were obsoleted by the
1976 revision to US copyright law.  17 USC 102.

As a courtesey and convenience to those who want to identify a copyright
holder in future -- remember that your works will be under copyright 70
years after you are dead in most cases -- noting the original holder may
be somewhat helpful.

Online copyright discussions are filled with posts from people trying to
track down owners of old and obscure works, no small issue.

I'd only hope Xen has this problem ;-)

</IANAL>


Cheers.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <karsten@xensource.com>
XenSource, Inc.
2300 Geng Road #250                                +1 650.798.5900 x259
Palo Alto, CA 94303                                +1 650.493.1579 fax