Relicense under Apache-2.0. #117
Conversation
Working to align more closely with the REUSE v3.0 and SPDX v2.3 specifications.
The copyright notice within the license file is confusing as it implies the copyright of the license itself vs. the covered work. The text has been replaced with a version statement and a month/year date of the known change to the current text of this license.
The BSD-3-Clause text is not Markdown...
Removed the copyright claim/range which was confusing bots and humans as its scope and application was unclear. Altered the License description text to clarify BSD-3-Clause usage while noting that some components may differ and use the non-commercial license. Individual projects will be updated to reflect the licensing change.
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #117 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 80.23% 81.53% +1.30%
==========================================
Files 10 10
Lines 1821 1950 +129
==========================================
+ Hits 1461 1590 +129
Misses 360 360
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Also adds new explanitory text to the README.
| @@ -1,8 +1,21 @@ | |||
| /*! | |||
| * Copyright (c) 2012-2024 Digital Bazaar, Inc. | |||
| * Copyright 2012 - 2024 Digital Bazaar, Inc. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why add spaces here and elsewhere?
| * Copyright 2012 - 2024 Digital Bazaar, Inc. | |
| * Copyright 2012-2024 Digital Bazaar, Inc. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the reuse command uses spaces... I find it annoying also, but didn't think it worth fighting the bot about.
If you feel it is...we can fork https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool until they make that an option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ISO 8601 apparently uses a / between dates to specify a range--and thankfully also allows for --.
So if we (and/or the reuse project) wanted to make this super parseable, I'd vote for the -- use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can't do what we want because the robot is broken?
https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/blob/main/src/reuse/_util.py#L388
Grepping through thousands of installed files, I only find ~4 files (or transformations thereof) with that spaced out pattern. I'd say the robot is wrong in this case. And to be fair, mostly everyone does single years. But a style under 1% use is a strange choice for them to make.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So if we (and/or the reuse project) wanted to make this super parseable, I'd vote for the
--use.
That would be even more of an outlier from common use than -.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. How would you like to fix this? I don't feel it's worth continuing to drag out the relicensing or avoid the automation. So, if you want to fight the whitespace fight, I'd take it upstream--or propose a cleanup script to make it match your preference: https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@davidlehn would you prefer I fork the tool and fix this whitespace? or can you live with the spaces?
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -801,15 +801,15 @@ See the [AUTHORS][] file for author contact information. | |||
| License | |||
| ------- | |||
|
|
|||
| Bedrock and all Bedrock modules are: | |||
| Bedrock core libraries are licensed under the [Apache-2.0](LICENSE). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This updated text also is not explicit about the license of this project. It can be inferred that this is a "Bedrock core library" but could be direct and say "This library and some other Bedrock core libraries are ..." to make it clear. (I'm not sure we have defined "core" yet so maybe phrase with "some" such that people will check.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would prefixing that section with the following do the trick?
| Bedrock core libraries are licensed under the [Apache-2.0](LICENSE). | |
| [Apache-2.0](LICENSE) Copyright YYYY-YYYY Digital Bazaar, Inc. | |
| Bedrock core libraries are licensed under the [Apache-2.0](LICENSE). |
"Project licensing" is basically an assumption about per-file licensing. Moving to implementing a more verbose description format (in this case REUSE v3.0), we avoid that assumption (with its common misapplications to other people's software) and move to file-by-file copyright and license claims--to avoid confusion.
That said, I agree it's a common signal in the README, so adding that seems reasonable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@davidlehn would love your thoughts here.
BigBlueHat
force-pushed
the
license-ref-change
branch
from
e940456 to
76e38c1
Compare
Working to apply the REUSE v3.0 spec correctly.
Also working to make the new licensing approach clear to both bots and humans.