search

resource-reasoning / jscert_dev

This repository is now abandoned in favour of using
https://github.com/jscert/jscert
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Add a license file #37

Closed brabalan closed 9 years ago

brabalan commented 9 years ago

We should have a visible license for this. How about GPL v3?

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Ah, this is awkward. I don't know what Imperial's licensing/copyright policy is. Other than that students own the copyright of their work. It is probably different for staff.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

With regards to license, as long as it is free/copyleft it's ok. Do we need to be careful with GPL if we're linking to other software libraries with different licenses?

philippagardner commented 9 years ago

We need to check this. P

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Jul 2015, at 13:57, Thomas Wood notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

With regards to license, as long as it is free/copyleft it's ok. Do we need to be careful with GPL if we're linking to other software libraries with different licenses?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/resource-reasoning/jscert_dev/issues/37#issuecomment-125196963.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

deleted

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

I've found another Imperial policy document (slightly inconsistent with the first), which says that we're permitted to publish under: GPL, Apache or BSD/MIT 2/3 clause.

We need to be careful of not trampling over the licenses of any code that we bundle:

That last one may be dodgy for compatibility...

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Oh, and the license should include the copyright line: Copyright (c) 2012-15, Imperial College, London, All rights reserved.

I assume INRIA will have a similar adjacent to it.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Ah, also, the Google Closure parser jar in https://github.com/resource-reasoning/JS_Parser is licensed under Apache 2.0.

brabalan commented 9 years ago

A couple comments. We discussed this briefly in February 2014 (https://lists.gforge.inria.fr/mailman/private/jscert-devel/2014-February/000949.html), but we did not act on it.

I see no trouble having several licenses for different bits of code: we say that all the code is licensed BLA except when said otherwise in a sub-directory.

The only problematic bit may be the jsjsref part. As it’s not in what we are going to make public right now, it’s still fine, but we’ll have to address it someday. We should ask @charguer if it’s easy to programmatically grab the part of the ocaml compiler that we use (so we would not be bundling it).

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Another thought, do we want to be compatible with the preferred ECMA license, in case we do gain traction there? (ECMA seem to require a BSD 3-clause)

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

The Q Public License is incompatible with the GPL, according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Public_License

brabalan commented 9 years ago

It would make sense to be compatible with ECMA licensing preferences.

Regarding the Ocaml license, I’m pretty sure we can manage to not include the Ocaml source code, but fetch it in “make init” and grab the folders we need (lex, parsing, tools, typing, utils). The file parse_type.ml seems to come from Ocamldoc, we can ask the ocaml people for an exemption regarding this file.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Just pushed a BSD 2-clause, as it's the least troublesome for now. I've not added any text saying that deeper/per-file license clauses take priority. Int32.v is the one potential conflict of licenses, I'm unsure of how GPL deals with linking vs distributing. I don't think we link to or use Int32.v?

The QPL/GPL conflict currently isn't an issue, as we're not bundling/linking to OCaml source code on public.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

Could someone check the LICENSE file before we push to public? Can someone confirm the status of Int32.v, I don't think we're using it.

brabalan commented 9 years ago

I’m fine with the license.

Regarding Int32.v, I don’t know. You could try deleting it and checking that extraction still works. I looked at commit 3b187f34faa79bfcb1260b5d527d41dd06dee911 and I don’t see it using it (extraction has not changed except for comments).

brabalan commented 9 years ago

I talked with @Mbodin, looked at the history of commits on that file and searched for Int32 in the repository, and I’m confident we don’t use it. So go ahead and delete it.

IgnoredAmbience commented 9 years ago

My system has decided to upgrade ocaml and now my build isn't working. (Inconsistent system and opam versions), will delete as soon as I get a build done and a testcase verified as working. Will then push and finally close both these tickets :)