Re: [ros-svn] [hbirr] 15836: Changed back to the GPL.

[Alex Ionescu]

hbirr(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:

>  Changed back to the GPL.
>
>
>
> Updated files:
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/include/internal/mm.h
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/anonmem.c
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/section.c
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-svn mailing list
> Ros-svn(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-svn
>
>   
>  
Hi Hartmut,

I had someone spend a week to update all our comment module headers and 
make them the same and remove the old copyright headers. It was decided 
that there would be one COPYING file in the root which is referred to by 
the header, and that all the kernel files will follow the format which 
is already in the files. Please don't start messing up the headers... if 
you want to update the license/add one, the proper place is the COPYING 
directory. Or else you're just undoing all the work that was done to 
standardize the headers.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Hartmut Birr]

Alex Ionescu wrote:

>   hbirr(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>
> >   Changed back to the GPL.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Updated files:
> >  trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/include/internal/mm.h
> >  trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/anonmem.c
> >  trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c
> >  trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/section.c
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-svn mailing list
> >  Ros-svn(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-svn
> >
> >   
> >  
>  Hi Hartmut,
>
>  I had someone spend a week to update all our comment module headers
>  and make them the same and remove the old copyright headers. It was
>  decided that there would be one COPYING file in the root which is
>  referred to by the header, and that all the kernel files will follow
>  the format which is already in the files. Please don't start messing
>  up the headers... if you want to update the license/add one, the
>  proper place is the COPYING directory. Or else you're just undoing all
>  the work that was done to standardize the headers.
>  
The GPL or LGPL says you have to add this header and you have to add 
the programmer which held the copyright. At the last weekend, I've wrote
a mail to berlios with a description about hostilix, that hostilix is a
1:1 copy of reactos and that they have only changed or a removed the
copyright information in the files. The answer was , the reactos files
doesn't contain any copyright informations. The hostilix files contains
copyright informations. This means that nobody has replaced a copyright.
It was difficult for me to find some files where the copyright was
changed or removed. I've send a sample to berlios. IMO we have to add
this header and the names of the programmers to all files.

- Hartmut

[Steven Edwards]

--- Hartmut Birr <hartmut.birr(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>   copyright informations. This means that nobody has
> replaced a copyright.
>  It was difficult for me to find some files where the copyright was
>  changed or removed. I've send a sample to berlios. IMO we have to add
>  this header and the names of the programmers to all files. 
According to the FSF website we have to have at the very least in each file "...each
file should
have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is
found." Which in our
case is the COPYING file in the top level directory. If developer names are missing from
our
source files we need to add them. The lack of a copyright notice does not imply Public
Domain or
no-copyright as works are copyright by default with no license upon creation. Anyone that
is
trying to say otherwise is trying to rip the work of a author.

Thanks
Steven



		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/

[Alex Ionescu]

Hartmut Birr wrote:

>  Alex Ionescu wrote:
>
>   
>
> >  hbirr(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
> >
> >     
> >
> > >  Changed back to the GPL.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Updated files:
> > > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/include/internal/mm.h
> > > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/anonmem.c
> > > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/marea.c
> > > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/section.c
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ros-svn mailing list
> > > Ros-svn(a)reactos.com
> > > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-svn
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >       
> > >  
> > Hi Hartmut,
> >
> > I had someone spend a week to update all our comment module headers
> > and make them the same and remove the old copyright headers. It was
> > decided that there would be one COPYING file in the root which is
> > referred to by the header, and that all the kernel files will follow
> > the format which is already in the files. Please don't start messing
> > up the headers... if you want to update the license/add one, the
> > proper place is the COPYING directory. Or else you're just undoing all
> > the work that was done to standardize the headers.
> >
> >     
> >  
> The GPL or LGPL says you have to add this header
>  
It also says you can add it in a COPYING file and simply refer to it. 
This has been verified by us and is a *fact*.

>   and you have to add 
> the programmer which held the copyright. 
>  
I totally agree, please continue your work on this.

>  At the last weekend, I've wrote
> a mail to berlios with a description about hostilix, that hostilix is a
> 1:1 copy of reactos and that they have only changed or a removed the
> copyright information in the files. The answer was , the reactos files
> doesn't contain any copyright informations. The hostilix files contains
> copyright informations. This means that nobody has replaced a copyright.
> It was difficult for me to find some files where the copyright was
> changed or removed. I've send a sample to berlios.
>  
Good job!

>   IMO we have to add
> this header 
>  
False... referring to the COPYING file is enough.

>  and the names of the programmers to all files.
>   
>  
Yes...thanks for helping.

>  - Hartmut
>   
>  
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Hartmut Birr]

Alex Ionescu wrote:

>   False... referring to the COPYING file is enough.
>  
I think, we should change the header a little bit:

/*
 * COPYRIGHT:    ReactOS Team
 * LICENSE:      GPL, see LICENCE in the top level directory        
 * PROJECT:      ReactOS kernel
 * FILE:         ntoskrnl/ke/apc.c
 * PURPOSE:      NT Implementation of APCs
 *
 * PROGRAMMERS:  Alex Ionescu (alex(a)relsoft.net)
 *               Phillip Susi
 *               ...
 */

because copyright and license are different things. Lawyers do like it
to find such things.

- Hartmut

[Mike Nordell]

Hartmut Birr wrote:

>   I think, we should change the header a little bit:
>
>  /*
>   * COPYRIGHT:    ReactOS Team 
I disagree. Quite strongly even (and I'm not American).

You can't assign copyright to a "team". It has to be a legal entity -
either
an individual or something else considered a possible copyright holder. The
"ReactOS Team" is a non-homogenous set of developers drifting in and out of
ROS, and is most certainly not a legal entity in this context.

You might get the idea "but what abut the ROS foundation?!". Indeed, what
about it. If the foundation's views and interest in upholding the copyright
does not 100% correlate to my view and interest (in ways) to uphold the
copyright, that's also a dead end.

>    * LICENSE:      GPL, see LICENCE in the top level
> directory
>   * PROJECT:      ReactOS kernel 
These I however do agree with. Removing the very large GPL header from all
files is IMO a noble goal (it's sometimes larger, in bytes, than the code
itself). But then, that's exactly what Alex proposed.


/Mike

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,

--- Mike Nordell <tamlin(a)algonet.se> wrote:
>   You might get the idea "but what abut the ROS
> foundation?!". Indeed, what
>  about it. If the foundation's views and interest in upholding the copyright
>  does not 100% correlate to my view and interest (in ways) to uphold the
>  copyright, that's also a dead end. 
Well its opt in. If you want the foundation to have copyright for the source files you
write I can
draw up copyright assignment paperwork. I would much rather each author retain rights to
their own
code making it harder on Microsoft by having to take more people to court.

>   These I however do agree with. Removing the very large
> GPL header from all
>  files is IMO a noble goal (it's sometimes larger, in bytes, than the code
>  itself). But then, that's exactly what Alex proposed. 
A simple solution is to include something like the following like the FSD recommends.

Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author(s)

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Alex Ionescu]

Hartmut Birr wrote:

>  Alex Ionescu wrote:
>
>   
>
> >  False... referring to the COPYING file is enough.
> >
> >     
> >  
> I think, we should change the header a little bit:
>
> /*
>  * COPYRIGHT:    ReactOS Team
>  * LICENSE:      GPL, see LICENCE in the top level directory        
>  * PROJECT:      ReactOS kernel
>  * FILE:         ntoskrnl/ke/apc.c
>  * PURPOSE:      NT Implementation of APCs
>  *
>  * PROGRAMMERS:  Alex Ionescu (alex(a)relsoft.net)
>  *               Phillip Susi
>  *               ...
>  */
>
> because copyright and license are different things. Lawyers do like it
> to find such things.
>
> - Hartmut
>   
>  
I don't have a problem with this except the copyright part. I just wrote 
a public email a couple of days ago saying how wrong "ReactOS Team" 
is...did you read it? I'll restate:

1) ReactOS Team is not a legal entity, it cannot be assigned copyright.
2) Replacing that by ReactOS Foundation (a legal entitity) is not 
correct since I'm not aware of any developer that has (yet) submitted 
his work under the Foundation's copyright.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Hartmut Birr]

Hartmut Birr wrote:

>  At the last weekend, I've wrote
> a mail to berlios with a description about hostilix, that hostilix is a
> 1:1 copy of reactos and that they have only changed or a removed the
> copyright information in the files. The answer was , the reactos files
> doesn't contain any copyright informations. The hostilix files contains
> copyright informations. This means that nobody has replaced a copyright.
> It was difficult for me to find some files where the copyright was
> changed or removed. I've send a sample to berlios. 
>  
If anyone thinks that the answer comes from a nobody of BerliOS, that is
not correct. The answer comes from a great programmer of an open source
project. Many people and projects use his program. I think that he
understand our feeling about HostiliX. His answer is a very correct
statement about the current situation.

- Hartmut