Monero tries to clam copyright to BSD licence

[jtgrassie]

Just looked at LICENSE & ORIGINAL-LICENSE and the copyright Monero has been removed.

NOTE: Issue title edited by @fireice-uk which now does not accurately portray the issue raised. Monero nor I claim Monero copyright of the BSD licence. The Monero Copyright notice was removed by Ryo, this is what the issue was raised for.

And the offending notice was on the BSD licence. This is what being in a fanboy cult does to you - fireice_uk

[jtgrassie]

Specifically you have removed:

Copyright (c) 2014-2018, The Monero Project

All rights reserved.

and

Parts of the project are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote
developers

[fireice-uk]

Thanks! First of all "the copyright Monero has been removed" is a nebulous term in this context, similar to "traffic law has been violated". I assume you are referring to copyright notice.

The text of the LICENSE file is our own work, hence the notice. Monero copyright notice is retained in place (where appropriate). Putting a copyright notice on the licence terms would be saying that you wrote them yourself - are you sure you want me to do that?

[jtgrassie]

From the Monero license:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
   list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

The "above" copyright notice is now missing.

2. 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.

Your redistributions also do not reproduce the copyright either.

Bottom line is this - the Monero project license covered code in the Monero project (whether individual source files had a copyright in them or not), the license stated copyright and credited the Cryptonote developers. This project is not giving that credit. Why not just keep the original license (unedited) alongside your new license?

[fireice-uk]

Monero copyright notice is retained in place (where appropriate). Putting a copyright notice on the licence terms would be saying that you wrote them yourself - are you sure you want me to do that?

[fireice-uk]

With regards to your additional complaint:

Your redistributions also do not reproduce the copyright either.

Both the copyright notices and licence terms are provided with the source code, which is freely available. I believe that this is the method used by Monero, correct?

Why not just keep the original license (unedited) alongside your new license?

That would potentially cause confusion as to the licence of the code.

[jtgrassie]

The problem is that there are Monero source files without the copyright / license in the actual source code of those files, but was covered by Monero's LICENSE file. By removing / editing the original license, that copyright and license is not clear for those files. In fact, it appears as if this project is trying to claim copyright for files that are copyright Monero.

It would be nice if projects that base their work off of a very large amount of code from another project, the others project license / copyright is honored.

Given almost all the code here is from Monero, it may be more appropriate to keep the Monero license as the base license and for any new / modified code, by Ryo devs, apply your restrictions on top, just for those files. That would seem to me a solve to acknowledge the copyright / license of the forked code and still allow you to restrict your changes.

[fireice-uk]

The problem is that there are Monero source files without the copyright / license in the actual source code of those files

I think you are confusing three separate legal concepts, I will point you to their respective Wikipedia pages, please read them thoroughly as they provide the minimum background for the discussion that you are attempting to do.

The three concepts are licence, copyright and copyright notice

Putting them as "copyright / license" makes just about as much sense as "my house / rental agreement"

it may be more appropriate to keep the Monero license as the base license and for any new / modified code, by Ryo devs, apply your restrictions on top

That's not possible to do legally. A contract is either one thing or another. Fortunately your licence does not prohibit application of other licences.

If you have any further questions / queries / requests, please do not hesitate to spell them out, but please read the background first, it is extremely frustrating to try to decipher what you mean.

[jtgrassie]

I understand quite clearly the distinction between copyright and license. The reason I lumped them together in a "copyright / license" is because the Monero license explicitly states "must retain the above copyright notice", which you have removed.

It appears you are trying to assert that by keeping any existing source code level copyright and license text satisfies the "above", but that is not the case. The Monero license stipulates the keeping of the copyright notice as written in the license file.

Just like every page in a book states copyright on one of the first few pages, they do not need to include that same copyright notice on every page in a book. You couldn't copy a chapter of a book and place it into another without a copyright notice somewhere (and of course in the case of most books, getting explicit permission to copy).

But anyway, I personally am not hugely bothered on this to have a long drawn out debate with you.
It would just be a nice gesture to include that single line back into the ORIGINAL_LICENSE to simply credit and acknowledge the huge amount of work done by Monero developers (and CryptoNote developers if you added the final line back in too).

[fireice-uk]

It appears you are trying to assert that by keeping any existing source code level copyright and license text satisfies the "above", but that is not the case. The Monero license stipulates the keeping of the copyright notice as written in the license file.

License file has no Monero work in it. Can you explain why you think Monero licence conditions apply to it?

Just like every page in a book states copyright on one of the first few pages, they do not need to include that same copyright notice on every page in a book.

Correct! Nevertheless we do it anyway (on top of the README.md and every single applicable file).

It would just be a nice gesture to include that single line back into the ORIGINAL_LICENSE to simply credit and acknowledge the huge amount of work done by Monero developers (and CryptoNote developers if you added the final line back in too).

Putting a copyright notice on the licence terms would be saying that you wrote them yourself - are you sure you want me to do that? A simple yes is enough for that one, although I would kindly request that it is explicitly approved by someone higher up the food chain that can speak for the project as a whole like @fluffypony

The reason I lumped them together in a "copyright / license" is because the Monero license explicitly states "must retain the above copyright notice", which you have removed.

You sound already aggravated, however I must point out that if you actually read the the material that I gave you would have found out that copyright notice is not copyright nor licence.

[jtgrassie]

Putting a copyright notice on the licence terms would be saying that you wrote them yourself - are you sure you want me to do that?

No. And that is your interpretation.

It is absolutely standard practice to include a copyright in the LICENSE or COPYING file in open source projects (such as in the BSD license). This is not declaring the license file itself is copyright, but used to reference the projects copyright and the license text refers to the above copyright notice. The copyright notice is text in the license file referred to by the license terms.

[fireice-uk]

As I said. Just get @fluffypony to come here and say, "I would like you to put our copyright notice on top of the ORIGINAL_LICENSE file.", and we will make it so.

[jtgrassie]

Well I am not his keeper nor is he the owner of Monero as you well know. I'm simply giving my own personal viewpoint here as a FOSS supporter.

[fireice-uk]

That's fine, but we can't entertain every tom-dick-or-harry's request here. It needs to be someone with implicit authority in the project like a person chairing the meetings or giving interviews on behalf of the project.

[fireice-uk]

Closing as per his own admission op is unauthorised to make requests on behalf of the copyright holder.