Update from 1989 MIT license text to modern MIT license text

[bradh352]

Inconsistent MIT license verbiage. Some files used non-standard license text.

This update standardizes all instances to use the current recognized MIT license text.

[bradh352]

hrm, this may not be proper as MIT apparently was the original source of ares which c-ares was a fork of, so it should stay in the copyright of any files containing any original source. That may be extremely hard to determine at this point, of course. I'm pretty sure we can actually place both copyrights in each file, legally, as different parts of the code may contain code written by different authors under different copyrights.

@bagder I really think we should move forward in some regard on this, at least any newly created code should be under the newer version of the license, so anything I've written I can authorize such a change. And if you'd let me change anything with your specific copyright I can do that too. Anything else, we'll probably need to do the "dual" license method so we don't violate anyone's rights.

[bagder]

The original ares MIT license seems to be the Old Style (no advertising without permission). But I can't find any SPDX identifier for this. It seems I was wrong to set it to MIT, clearly an assumption of mine that was not correct.

For anything that has my copyright we can just as well switch to the canonical MIT license version.

The original ares was written by Greg Hudson. Maybe we can reach out to him and see what he has to say. He at least used to be ghudson at MIT.EDU twenty years ago...

[bradh352]

Looks like he might be on github too :)

@greghudson are you the same Greg Hudson that was the original "ares" author? If so, can you comment on licensing? We would like to move away from the 1989 MIT license for c-ares to the currently recognized MIT license. We would also need to know if "MIT" needs to be maintained as one of the copyright holders, or if you personally are the copyright holder.

[greghudson]

I am the original author of ares. It was a work-for-hire (I wrote it as an employee of MIT, which I still am), so the copyright is owned by MIT. I am not sure what the "currently recognized MIT license" refers to, but I can authorize a switch to a 2-clause BSD license like MIT uses for current MIT krb5:

/*                                                                              
 * Copyright (C) 2023 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.             
 * All rights reserved.                                                         
 *                                                                              
 * 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 disclaimer.              
 *                                                                              
 * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright          
 *   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in            
 *   the documentation and/or other materials provided with the                 
 *   distribution.                                                              
 *                                                                              
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS          
 * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT            
 * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS            
 * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE               
 * COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,                   
 * INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES           
 * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR           
 * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)           
 * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,          
 * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)                
 * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED          
 * OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.                                           
 */

[bradh352]

@greghudson The current license is identical to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style_(no_advertising_without_permission)

Copyright 1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation, and that the name of M.I.T. not be used in advertising
or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,
written prior permission.  M.I.T. makes no representations about the
suitability of this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is"
without express or implied warranty.

We would like to update it to https://opensource.org/license/mit/ (https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html)

Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (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.

While I don't have a problem with the 2-clause BSD license you said you could approve, that just adds to license sprawl that I'm trying to address here.

Can you approve the switch to this MIT license referenced above?

NOTE: edited new license to fit within 80-character lines.

[bradh352]

@greghudson, not sure if this is relevant, but I did find this page:
https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/software-and-open-source-licensing/open-source-licensing

Which says:

MIT faculty adopted an Open Access Policy in 2009. In keeping with this policy,
the TLO has worked with MIT faculty and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to
identify ideal licenses to use when releasing MIT-owned copyright through open
source.

...

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POPULAR SOFTWARE LICENSES
Preferred:

• MIT License

Acceptable:

• 3-clause BSD license (BSD-3-Clause)
• GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (as required by other licenses)

Not Recommended:

• Open Software 3.0
• Apache License 2.0 (Apache-2.0)
• 2-clause BSD license (BSD-2-Clause)

So we're looking to transfer to the only "Preferred" option on that page :)

[greghudson]

Sure, if the MIT TLO currently recommends that as the preferred license, I'm happy to authorize that as well.

[bradh352]

@greghudson awesome, thank you. I'll get this PR fixed up to properly provide attribution to MIT where relevant under the current MIT license text.

[bradh352]

Andrew Selivanov (@ki11roy), Christian Ammer (@ChristianAmmer), John Schember (@user-none), Gisle Vanem (@gvanem), Jakub Hrozek (@jhrozek), Daniela Sonnenschein (@lxdicted), Jérémy Lal (@kapouer), Marko Kreen (@markokr) :

You all have been identified as having provided significant contributions to c-ares in the past and are listed as copyright holders in one or more files in c-ares.

We are trying to update the MIT license version used in c-ares from the 1989 variant:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Old_Style_(no_advertising_without_permission)
to the currently widely recognized MIT license text:
https://opensource.org/license/mit/

We would appreciate confirmation (or decline) from each of the above listed contributors to re-license your contributions under the newer text. Please reply to this ticket.

Thanks!

[kapouer]

Yes, go ahead.

[bradh352]

Dominick Meglio (@dcmeglio), do we have your permission as well to update to the latest MIT license text?

[dcmeglio]

Dominick Meglio (@dcmeglio), do we have your permission as well to update to the latest MIT license text?

Sure. No problem

[ki11roy]

Sure. Go ahead guys.

…

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 3:44 AM dcmeglio ***@***.***> wrote: Dominick Meglio ***@***.*** <https://github.com/dcmeglio>), do we have your permission as well to update to the latest MIT license text? Sure. No problem — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#556 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAN2MZXTNQIQH2QUFYVZ3BTX5NNXXAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5LAM6VWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONBTHE4DMNJVHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Best regards, Andrew

[user-none]

I'm good with the change.

[bradh352]

Great, that leaves acknowledgements needed from Christian Ammer (@ChristianAmmer), Gisle Vanem (@gvanem), Jakub Hrozek (@jhrozek), Daniela Sonnenschein (@lxdicted), and Marko Kreen (@markokr)

[ChristianAmmer]

Sure, fine for me.

[kapouer]

BTW I don't really remember how I got my name into it. My contribution is so small, that I'd rather waive my rights to c-ares, if I had any :) That'll make one less people to ask when it comes to it !

[markokr]

Fine by me.

[gvanem]

Fine. Go ahead.

[bradh352]

Alright, we're down to license acknowledgements needed from:

Jakub Hrozek (@jhrozek):

• ares_parse_naptr_reply.c
• ares_parse_txt_reply.c
• ares_parse_srv_reply.c
• ares_parse_uri_reply.c

Daniela Sonnenschein (@lxdicted):

• ares_parse_caa_reply.c

[jhrozek]

I'm ok with relicensing any and all of my contributions to cares

[bradh352]

@jhrozek, we'll only be changing the version of the MIT license in use. You'll still be attributed.

[bradh352]

Due to not having valid contact information for Daniela Sonnenschein (@lxdicted) -- both email addresses I have bounced, I have put both license blocks on ares_parse_caa_reply.c.

At this point, I've received confirmation from every author who directly contributed to c-ares and put their name in a copyright header, so I think this PR is on solid legal grounds.