[darcs-users] Licensing and copyright fun.

Trent W. Buck trentbuck at gmail.com
Sat Oct 11 06:57:29 UTC 2008

trentbuck at gmail.com (Trent W. Buck) writes:

> If a file has no license declaration, it *is not licensed*.  Therefore
> adding license declarations is REQUIRED.  It is *not* sufficient to
> simply include a COPYING file in the root directory.  This applies to
> *ALL* files (that aren't autogenerated), including documentation, tests
> and build files.
> It's not clear to me if we can add a license declaration to a file
> without checking with the copyright holder.  Are contributions to darcs
> - implicitly "GPL2";
> - implicitly "GPL2 or higher"; or
> - not implicitly licensed?
> If the last, we need to contact each contributor and get them to agree
> to license their contributions.  Much of this has probably already been
> done when kowey et al were getting openssl exception agreements.  I'll
> have to go back and look at their message to see if correspondents were
> agreeing to "GPL2 & openssl exception" or "GPL2+ & openssl exception".

Unfortunately, release/openssl_ok indicates that correspondents were
agreeing to exceptions, but not an actual license!  I think this means
we need to talk to everyone who has worked on Darcs so far, and get them
to agree to license their work under the terms of GPL-2 or higher, with
the exceptions mentioned in release/openssl_ok.

Eric, would you like to schedule a meeting to discuss this in IRC?  I'm
in the +1100 timezone at the moment, and I'm available all weekend.

Related BTS issues:

  darcs patch: Copyright and licensing notes and rationales.

  darcs changes --xml is not consistently encoded

More information about the darcs-users mailing list