search

ietf-wg-jsonpath / draft-ietf-jsonpath-base

Development of a JSONPath internet draft
https://ietf-wg-jsonpath.github.io/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/
Other
58 stars 20 forks source link

Make LICENSE more apparent #477

Open akirataguchi115 opened 1 year ago

akirataguchi115 commented 1 year ago

Remove LICENSE.md as well due to it only referring to CONTRIBUTION. Do comment here if the license used here is wrong. I merely inferred it from the previous license text.

akirataguchi115 commented 1 year ago

You think so? 'All rights reserved'? Could it be possible to modify it so that GitHub repository page can also show it as something it recognizes?

gregsdennis commented 1 year ago

Yes. This is an IETF project, and they likely want their license.

@cabo @timbray would you care to comment?

cabo commented 1 year ago

Ideally, the shape of the repository would be as described in RFC 8875; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8875.html#section-3.1 for one of the places this is discussed there. This RFC was published in August 2020. Glyn created the LICENSE file in July 2020. So maybe we need to check whether everything is as discussed in RFC 8874/75.

cabo commented 1 year ago

'All rights reserved'?

This is a standard phrase in a copyright statement that is needed to make the copyright statement valid in certain jurisdictions.

Copyright is generally hard, because it needs to work in all jurisdictions, so I'd rather stick with what is normal here. I'd point to an example repo by one of the people in the know, except I can't find one right now...

timbray commented 1 year ago

Surely there must be a consensus-based approach that has been applied to recent RFC-backing repos, of which there are many? Do we need to invent anything here?

On Jun 9, 2023 at 4:35:22 AM, Akira Taguchi @.***> wrote:

@.**** commented on this pull request.

In LICENSE https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/477#discussion_r1224191624 :

@@ -1,11 +1,25 @@ -Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the -document authors. All rights reserved.

-This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal -Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ -license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. -Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights -and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components -extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text -as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are -provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. +BSD 2-Clause License

Good reasoning. However isn't the license currently too vague and interpretable?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/477#discussion_r1224191624, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAEJE6ANMZHX4UH44WSC6LXKMC7VANCNFSM6AAAAAAZAIROSE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: <ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/477/review/1471775620@ github.com>

cabo commented 1 year ago

On 9. Jun 2023, at 17:31, Tim Bray @.***> wrote:

Surely there must be a consensus-based approach that has been applied to recent RFC-backing repos, of which there are many? Do we need to invent anything here?

I don’t think we want to doctor with the licenses that the TLP provides. We just should make sure that these are clearly announced with the repo. I think we set up the repo slightly before RFC 8875 was available to provide the guidance for that, so we should re-check.

We could also make sure that elements of the repo that are not directly becoming part of the document governed by the TLP (i.e., scripts directory) are also clearly licensed.

Grüße, Carsten