Change Scala license to unmodified 3-clause BSD. #2881

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 6, 2013

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
Owner

adriaanm commented Aug 27, 2013

No longer using the slightly reworded 3-clause BSD license.
This does not change the meaning of the license,
just aligns it with the standard wording.

adriaanm referenced this pull request in scala/scala-lang Aug 28, 2013

Merged

Change Scala license to unmodified 3-clause BSD. #112

Member

gkossakowski commented Aug 30, 2013

@adriaanm: do I understand correctly that all decisions has been made and this should be merged?

Owner

heathermiller commented Aug 30, 2013

Not sure

Member

xeno-by commented Aug 30, 2013

@gkossakowski I would say this needs a proper discussion first

Member

gkossakowski commented Aug 30, 2013

@xeno-by: I wasn't in the loop when it comes to license stuff so I'll let @adriaanm elaborate on it. I agree that licensing and copyright situation should be clarified with everybody working on Scala project.

Owner

adriaanm commented Aug 30, 2013

Besides Typesafe's copyright, is there anything that needs to be discussed/clarified? It's just a re-alignment with the standard wording of the BSD license, instead of the old wording, which was improperly copy/pasted (and erroneously modified) from an older version of the same BSD license (e.g., it refers to the "regents" instead of the actual copyright holders).

I think Typesafe's copyright was part of the deal when Typesafe was founded and covers @odersky's work (on Scala 2.9) as a Typesafe co-founder.

Member

xeno-by commented Aug 31, 2013

  1. The change to the license is indeed miniscule and looks okay to my untrained eye except for a couple copy/paste issues: a) "Neither the name of the EPFL nor the names of its contributors". Should this also mention Typesafe taking into account the proposed copyright change? b) "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE". Why is the "copyright owner" singular?

I would also like to learn more about what the mentioned deal consists in, and what it entails for Scala contributors.

  1. Is there any information about it? For example, were the changes to Scala's copyright that it brings discussed on the mailing lists (public ones or LAMP ones)?

  2. What about the old formulation used on the scaladoc website for quite a while: "Scala programming documentation. Copyright (c) 2003-2013 EPFL, with contributions from Typesafe"? Does it reflect the state of things well? Are there plans to change it too?

  3. What does the new formulation cover? Is it only @odersky's work or also the work of @odersky's employees at LAMP? Should that be reflected in the copyright?

  4. Given that the deal was established two years ago, why wasn't it codified back then?

  5. How does retroactive copyright work? Will LAMP's and/or community's contributions from 2011 and onwards become counted as intellectual property of Typesafe?

  6. In general, what does it mean for two entities to concurrently hold copyright? Are there any peculiarities to this in our case?

Since it looks like there's quite a number of details to figure out about the copyright change, I think the matter at hand would benefit from more eyes looking at it. Therefore I propose that we: 1) start a discussion on scala-internals, as well as 2) highlight this particular change as a dedicated discussion point on the next core meeting

Owner

adriaanm commented Aug 31, 2013

IANAL, so I can't answer your questions, sorry.

This is why we're using the standard BSD license. This is all taken
verbatim from http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

You can have various authors (who retain their copyright) and and
organization that holds the license.
When you sign the CLA, you effective license your work to the "copyright
holder" organization (EPFL), who can do pretty much whatever they want with
it (including relicense).

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Eugene Burmako notifications@github.comwrote:

  1. The change to the license is indeed miniscule and looks okay to my
    untrained eye except for a couple copy/paste issues: a) "Neither the name
    of the EPFL nor the names of its contributors". Should also mention
    Typesafe taking into account the proposed copyright change. b) "IN NO EVENT
    SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE". Why is the "copyright
    owner" singular?

I would also like to learn more about what the mentioned deal consists in,
and what it entails for Scala contributors.

  1. Is there any information about it? For example, were the changes to
    Scala's copyright that it brings discussed on the mailing lists (public
    ones or LAMP ones)?

  2. What about the old formulation used on the scaladoc website for quite a
    while: "Scala programming documentation. Copyright (c) 2003-2013 EPFL, with
    contributions from Typesafe"? Does it reflect the state of things well? Are
    there plans to change it too?

  3. What does the new formulation cover? Is it only @oderskyhttps://github.com/odersky's
    work or also the work of @odersky https://github.com/odersky's
    employees at LAMP? Should that be reflected in the copyright?

  4. Given that the deal was established two years ago, why wasn't it
    codified back then?

  5. How does retroactive copyright work? Will LAMP's and/or community's
    contributions from 2011 and onwards become counted as intellectual property
    of Typesafe?

  6. In general, what does it mean for two entities to concurrently hold
    copyright? Are there any peculiarities to this in our case?

Since it looks like there's quite a number of details to figure out about
the copyright change, I think the matter at hand would benefit from more
eyes looking at it. Therefore I propose that we: 1) start a discussion on
scala-internals, as well as 2) highlight this particular change as a
dedicated discussion point on the next core meeting


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/scala/scala/pull/2881#issuecomment-23602729
.

@adriaanm adriaanm Change Scala license to unmodified 3-clause BSD.
No longer using the slightly reworded 3-clause BSD license.
This does not change the meaning of the license,
just aligns it with the standard wording.
53e905e
Owner

adriaanm commented Sep 3, 2013

I removed Typesafe's copyright line pending clarification.
I fully expect it to come back, as I think it's the right thing to do.
We'll take all the time needed to make everyone comfortable with this change before even submitting a PR.

I think it is urgent to clean up our license, so let's merge this PR first, and have a separate discussion about the Typesafe copyright.

Member

gkossakowski commented Sep 4, 2013

@xeno-by, @heathermiller: could you guys look at it and check if everything looks fine to you?

I looked at the diff and it looks good to me.

Owner

heathermiller commented Sep 6, 2013

Lgtm

Member

gkossakowski commented Sep 6, 2013

Thanks.

gkossakowski merged commit ce98bb4 into scala:master Sep 6, 2013

1 check passed

default pr-scala Took 70 min.
Details

adriaanm deleted the adriaanm:license-cleanup branch Dec 10, 2013

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment