search

porres / pd-else

ELSE - EL Locus Solus' Externals for Pure Data
Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License
299 stars 35 forks source link

fix LICENSE file (add GPL) #489

Open umlaeute opened 5 years ago

umlaeute commented 5 years ago

the License.txt implies that the entire project is under the WTFPL.

However, both [fdn.rev~] and [giga.rec~] are released under the GPL, which is more restrictive than the WTFPL.

Please mention this in the License.txt

umlaeute commented 5 years ago

i noticed that the README mentions the differing licenses. i'd still like to suggest to add that information to the License.txt as well.

porres commented 5 years ago

i noticed that the README mentions the differing licenses. i'd still like to suggest to add that information to the License.txt as well.

yup, and both these objects have the license information in it.

Well, I have to say I have plans to better document these different licenses, but the milestone for that is when I reach the first official/stable release. I want to have maybe in the readme which objects take which licenses.

Now, please, tell me exactly what's the suggestion, just add the different license texts into License.txt? Add different License files?

cheers

umlaeute commented 5 years ago

the suggestion is to add a short paragraph for each deviant "object" to the License.txt.

similar to https://git.iem.at/pd/Gem/blob/master/COPYING.txt#L37-48

umlaeute commented 5 years ago

some more observations:

there's are some media-files included with else that do not originate in this library (e.g. were created by other people, under whatever license).

i've identified at least the following:

i have done no checks about the other WAV files in the Help-files/ folder, so I cannot make any statement about those files.

umlaeute commented 5 years ago

and of course the leftovers from cyclone:

shared/file.*
shared/grow.*
shared/mifi.*
porres commented 5 years ago

i have done no checks about the other WAV files in the Help-files/ folder, so I cannot make any statement about those files.

I see, thanks for checking this all out. I actually don't even remember where I got those from... :/ - I know of another voice wavefile that's a sample (or "quote") stolen from a Monty Python sketch... so, hmm, probably not a good idea, right?

I got some stuff from cyclone and these objects have a very modest remark about it, like [else/midi] which says it's based on cyclone's [seq] (and uses the mifi dependency). But I know I have to make this better and it seems this is getting really overdue.

thanks again

esaruoho commented 1 year ago

@porres does having the 1.0 Final Release label on this ticket from June 2019 still make sense? Is this still an important ticket to have open?

umlaeute commented 1 year ago

given that the LICENSE determines the (re)distributability of a project, i would consider this a very important (albeit boring) issue.

i'm totally for fixing this now, rather than at some undetermined point in the future when the 1.0 :tada: release hits the media.

porres commented 1 year ago

Ok, let me do this now and sorry for the delay...

I would still like a little bit of help, since I'm really ignorant

I will check throughly, but from the top of my head, I'm also using GNU/GPL, MIT, BSD and that's

so I just copy the text of each license one below the other and that's it?

porres commented 1 year ago

Quickly checking around, @timothyschoen we got a bunch of band limited oscillators you wrote, what are the licenses? there's bl.imp~ bl.imp2~ bl.saw~ bl.saw2~ bl.square~ bl.tri~ and bl.vsaw~...

Other than that, there's;

umlaeute commented 1 year ago

there are multiple ways of doing this.

the simplest one is probably to just state in the LICENSE.txt that all files are are © @porres and licensed under the WTFPL unless stated otherwise within the files, and then make sure that all files that are not covered by your copyright/license have the appropriate boilerplates. for non-text files (where it is hard to add a boilerplate), add a separate paragraph in your LICENSE.txt listing the files with copyright holders and the resp. licenses (of course it makes sense to group files that have the same copyright holders and license).

sidenote: the LICENSE.txt currently says that the copyright holder is sam hocevar. this is most likely just a copy-and-paste error. it would be best to fix the copyright holder, so that sam does not get bugreports (and license questions) for a project they never even heard of.

porres commented 1 year ago

currently says that the copyright holder is sam hocevar. this is most likely just a copy-and paste error.

that's how little I know about licensing (shame on me). I now see I have to put my name, but I really thouhgt that when the GNU license is like " Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/" that you had to keep it cause they owned the license (laughing already?)

And I am now thinking how to deal with these things. An external like sfont~ should have my copyright name, cause I did the external... and the license must be GNU then... I thought I had to put the copyright to fuildsynth, but no... I just have to keep the license because it is based on it and uses mostly its code, right?

And I should do the same for an object like sfz~, putting my name as the author of the object and its license (BSD-2 clause), but then I also keep a copy of the SFIZZ code and inside that folder there is its original license with the original SFIZZ authors... right?

Now, I also checked the source code of bl.saw~ and it says

" // License: BSD 2 Clause // Created by Timothy Schoen and Porres, based on LabSound polyBLEP oscillators "

sorry I bothered you @timothyschoen before just having a look...

I'm still a bit confused how to deal with it all. I'm not the single author of all objects in ELSE, I can say that copyright is mine and finishing with "and others"... and leave it to the source code to specify more about authorship (which already it does)

I'm about to finish the release anyway before I actually sort it out 100%, cause I have make it available for my students already... but I'll keep working on it and keeping this ooened.

Seems like a good thing to have a subfolder named license with copies of different licenses in different files, and one file that lists which object diverges from the main license, hopefully that works.

Also, can github show multiple libraries listed?

umlaeute commented 1 year ago

that's how little I know about licensing (shame on me). I now see I have to put my name, but I really thouhgt that when the GNU license is like " Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/" that you had to keep it cause they owned the license (laughing already?)

to be honest i checked other projects that use the WTFPL how they deal with this before i commented :-) (and afaict, sam hocevar is the author of the WTFPL) sometimes it is confusing.

an external like sfont~ should have my copyright name, cause I did the external...

well if anybody else contributed non-trivial portions of the sfont~ code (e.g they fixed a bug in your external; or they wrote the original code that you build the external on; or they wrote another external where you pilfered code from,...), then they are also copyright holders (and have to agree to the license under which the given file is published; if they contributed to your code after the fact (as in: submitted pull-requests to your repo), it is fair to assume that they published the code under the license you used at the time of their contibution; if they have written original code that you took, then of course their original license applies to their code)

but then I also keep a copy of the SFIZZ code and inside that folder there is its original license with the original SFIZZ authors... right?

yes. a single file can have multiple copyright holders (see above). it can also have multiple separate licenses (if the code portions are clearly separated), though that way usually lies madness. (it's usually easier to keep the original license)

Seems like a good thing to have a subfolder named license with copies of different licenses

that's probably overkill. how many licenses are there altogether? for well-known licenses i think it is enough to just use there well-known names and add a link to their website (or use the SPDX identifier). obviously for very short licenses like the BSD & MIT licenses, including them all in a single document works as well.

Also, can github show multiple libraries listed?

don't know what this means.

tomara-x commented 1 year ago

to be honest i checked other projects that use the WTFPL how they deal with this before i commented :-) (and afaict, sam hocevar is the author of the WTFPL) sometimes it is confusing.

lol great! now you had him commit a crime. (just kidding) porres is not the owner of the wftpl. this is the text of the license, the project itself is licensed under it, but this is just its text. you shouldn't put your name in it.

when you go to the faust license you see that the copyright notice is at the tope (the part saying how the project is licensed and who owns it, that's where porres' name should go) but then you find the license texts.. like gpl which is owned by the fsf (not porres)

https://github.com/grame-cncm/faust/blob/master-dev/COPYING.txt

tomara-x commented 1 year ago

the whole point was to just relax about all the legal mumbo-jumbo btw

http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

but i really wanna see a court case where: "your honor, my project was licensed with correct notice under the terms of WTFPL"

umlaeute commented 1 year ago

thanks for the clarifications

umlaeute commented 9 months ago

what's the state of this?

porres commented 9 months ago

I have added for a while a folder with separate files for each license and a more detailed list of which object is under which license, but I kept this opened because I guess I wanted to revise this and re-check things

Screen Shot 2024-02-08 at 16 20 45

umlaeute commented 9 months ago

ah well, i wouldn't have looked into that folder, obviously just checking the License.txt file.

i noticed that the README mentions the different licenses (which is great). i was going to complain that the README should then also mention the LICENSE/ folder to check for the license texts, but hav enow discovered, that this is also mentioned (so i missed it).

so here's a few more nitpicks/suggestions: