search

kevincox / youtube-e2l

A Firefox addon to replace YouTube embeds with links to the video.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-embed2link/
Apache License 2.0
4 stars 3 forks source link

License issues #14

Closed mangeurdenuage closed 7 years ago

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

The root directory don't have a COPYING file with a copy of the software license. A plain text version of Apache License, Version 2.0 can be found here: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Edit: root directory has a COPYING file now.

The source files in </youtube-embed2link/resources/youtube-embed2link> don't have notices saying you are the copyright holder and/or that they are released under Apache License, Version 2.0. I'm writing to ask you to please put a notice on each nontrivial source file.

Selecting a license on a website that hosts the add-on (like addons.mozilla.org), will only show it there, the source files won't be modified.

First, here's why license notices are needed.

The purpose of a license notice is to state formally that a certain file may be used under the terms of a particular license.

The Apache License, Version 2.0, like most free software licenses, applies to whatever material is released under that license. It does not say anything about which programs are released that way.

Therefore, simply including a copy of the Apache License, Version 2.0 with some code does not release the code under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0. To do that, you need a license notice, which says, more or less, "We the copyright holders release this code under the Apache License, Version 2.0."

It should be accompanied by a copyright notice, which says who "we" copyright holders are. That takes the form "Copyright YEAR NAME".

For the Apache License, there are two other reasons for a license notice: to say which version of the Apache License applies, and (for Apache License, Version 2.0), to say whether the Apache License's option of GPL compatibility applies. It is enabled by default in Apache License, Version 2.0, but users should have an explicit statement of where things stand for any particular code. The license notice is where you specify this.

Why should the license notice be on each source file? Because doing it at the package level is error-prone.

In the free software community, it is not unusual to copy a file from a free program into some other context. If the source file doesn't have its own license notice, then its licensing comes from the original context. In the other context, its licensing may not be clear. It may not be stated at all, or it could be stated wrong. For instance, what if the other program says, "This program is released under Apache 2.0", or "This program is released under GNU GPL, version 3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."

The result would be to misinform users about the file's licensing.

People sometimes copy part of a file, too. If the file has a license notice, people know to preserve that notice when copying part of the file's code. Otherwise, the licensing will probably get lost.

A different problem can happen if you copy code into YouTube Embed2Link from some other package. Your package-level license notice would say it is under Apache License, Version 2.0, but what if it actually carries some other license, such as Apache 2.0, or GPL Version 3 or later?

Keeping a license notice in each file is the way to reliably show users what their rights are. Please don't let uncertainty creep in.

You've made a decision about the license -- would you please announce it in a way that won't get forgotten?

See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html for how to apply license notices.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

The license should be stated on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-embed2link/ too.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Is there any particular reason you are worried about this? I release this under the Apache 2 license. I'll put in a copying file when I find time.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox The issue should not be closed until the issue have been fixed.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

It has been fixed. The license is now described in the COPYING file in the repo.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox Thank you. Then there are two issues left:

kevincox commented 7 years ago

I've noted the license on the AMO page.

I'm not adding the info to each source file. Also note that the license is Apache 2.0 not MPL.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox

I've noted the license on the AMO page.

Thank you.

I'm not adding the info to each source file.

Do you use GNU/Linux? I can send you a script to add them for you.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Do you use GNU/Linux? I can send you a script to add them for you. Thanks for the offer but I'm not interested in adding it. I understand the arguments for and against and I choose not to include them.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox Thank you for letting me know.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

BTW if you edit your original comment to update your labels it is a lot less annoying to others.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox I'm sorry, I had to tweak this as GitHub do not re-index comments.

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

Great, what did you tell kevincox to convince him ?

Le 22/10/2016 13:37, Kevin Cox a écrit :

It has been fixed. The license is now described in the COPYING file in the repo.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

@davidhedlund Is there any particular reason you want the notices in the source files? I don't want them there TBH. I feel they hold little value.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox I like your software and want it approved for the IceCat add-on repository. In order to make that happen these license notices must be added.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox there is a package called licenseutils to add them if you use GNU/Linux.

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

Thank you :) I wish you good luck in your work.

Le 22/10/2016 13:37, Kevin Cox a écrit :

It has been fixed. The license is now described in the COPYING file in the repo.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Hmm, do they have a policy somewhere that says the file headers are required? I believe the license at the project level should be enough.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox Yes we have. I'm the add-on repository maintainer.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

But the policy is for everything listed in directory.fsf.org. Your add-on will be listed at https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat once approved.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox So you can please open this issue?

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Forgive me for being painful but reading https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requirements it seems that files are not required to have a copyright notice at the top. It just warns about notices that don't match that of the project or other free licenses.

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

@kevincox "Forgive me for being painful" No problem You can read at the beginning at the page that " Please note that this page is still under development. " It should be covered and will be.

Adding the license at the beginning of the files is more work, but it is, I think, a necessity to have a full protection for the users (and devs) of the software.

Imagine, that you transfer your rights of the software to someone else and that person makes the software proprietary via a trick in the law via the files that aren't licensed.

An example of correctly licensed software can be looking in the LibreJS software addon. https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/

Honestly, I was surprised the first time, that you need to be very explicit on what license you use so that it can be applied efficiently.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox It should be updated about this at any time. The top of the page says: Please note that this page is still under development.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

I appreciate the concern but I really think that the single license covering the project is sufficient. Many lawyers agree and I am happy with this situation. For example the Apache License FAQ explicitly says that only one license is necessary per distribution.

http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#copy-per-file

kevincox commented 7 years ago

I've decided that I will put a header at the beginning of every file.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox Much appreciated.

I will approve your entry once I see this version in https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-embed2link/ so please be patient and let this issue be open until then.

We build our add-on repository from addons.mozilla.org.

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

Great thank you. Remember to update it on the mozilla website too, so that we can validdate it ;)

Have a good day and

Happy hacking

Le 26/10/2016 10:21, Kevin Cox a écrit :

I've decided that I will put a header at the beginning of every file.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox

I appreciate the concern but I really think that the single license covering the project is sufficient. Many lawyers agree and I am happy with this situation. For example the Apache License FAQ explicitly says that only one license is necessary per distribution.

http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#copy-per-file

Richard Stallman was kind and consulted me, this is what he said:

For example the Apache License FAQ explicitly says that only one license is necessary per distribution.

I see a subtle misunderstanding between the license and license notices.

One copy of the license is enough, of course. However, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html states that each file should have its own license notice. It also says what the license notice looks like.

So their policy is basically the same as the GNU Project's policy: include one copy of the license, and put a license notice on each source file.

Can you explain the misunderstanding to the author?

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

I would gladly do so but he has already responded positively. Am I missing something ? See the screen shot from the conversation: https://github.com/kevincox/youtube-e2l/issues/14#issuecomment-256280818

Le 30/12/2016 23:46, David Hedlund a écrit :

@kevincox https://github.com/kevincox

I appreciate the concern but I really think that the single license
covering the project is sufficient. Many lawyers agree and I am
happy with this situation. For example the Apache License FAQ
explicitly says that only one license is necessary per distribution.

http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#copy-per-file

Richard Stallman was kind and consulted me, this is what he said:

For example the Apache License FAQ explicitly says that only one
license is necessary per distribution.

I see a subtle misunderstanding between the /license/ and /license notices/.

One /copy of the license/ is enough, of course. However, http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html states that each file should have its own /license notice/. It also says what the license notice looks like.

So their policy is basically the same as the GNU Project's policy: include one copy of the license, and put a license /notice/ on each source file.

Can you explain the misunderstanding to the author?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kevincox/youtube-e2l/issues/14#issuecomment-269831433, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AV4pC0pf1pfxR0ZyTV6POdJuJGEeEYsDks5rNYmogaJpZM4KbplN.

-- Note: veuillez s'il vous plaît utiliser GnuPg pour nos futures conversations https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/fr/ Plus d'info ici: http://www.bibmath.net/crypto/index.php?action=affiche&quoi=moderne/pgp

Message envoyé avec GNU Icedove un fork de Thunderbird https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Icedove

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@mangeurdenuage I missed to put quotes on the whole text from RMS, it was not to you. You have not missed anything.

mangeurdenuage commented 7 years ago

ok

Le 01/01/2017 21:42, David Hedlund a écrit :

@mangeurdenuage https://github.com/mangeurdenuage I missed to put quotes on the whole text from RMS, it was not to you. You have not missed anything.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kevincox/youtube-e2l/issues/14#issuecomment-269918774, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AV4pCx9-vi8cKV2J_8oYakuAn2PnJYKjks5rOA_SgaJpZM4KbplN.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox There's still no license notices added to the source files despite that you said you were going to add them.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Which files do you see without a license notice?

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox On the files downloaded from addons.mozilla.org.

kevincox commented 7 years ago

Hm, I just tired rebuilding the extension and it has bit-rotted over time. I don't have enough interest to fix it. If anyone would like to I'll gladly accept fixes.

davidhedlund commented 7 years ago

@kevincox I understand completely if you don't have time to make it a web extension. Thank you for all answers.

By the way, you might want to say that this project is dead at both addons.mozilla.org and here on GitHub.