Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1340005:
Pass tools/licenses.py for third_party/gles_book and third_party/glew.... (Closed)
|
Created:
10 years, 9 months ago by alokp Modified:
9 years, 6 months ago CC:
chromium-reviews Base URL:
svn://chrome-svn/chrome/trunk/src/ Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionPass tools/licenses.py for third_party/gles_book and third_party/glew.
BUG=39242
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=42802
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
Messages
Total messages: 18 (0 generated)
http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005/diff/1/3 File third_party/gles2_book/LICENSE (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005/diff/1/3#newcode7 third_party/gles2_book/LICENSE:7: http://www.opengles-book.com This isn't a license. (?)
http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005/diff/1/3 File third_party/gles2_book/LICENSE (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005/diff/1/3#newcode7 third_party/gles2_book/LICENSE:7: http://www.opengles-book.com There is no license available for this code. These are just code samples from a book made available online by the book authors. I had got it cleared by the Legal team before submitting it to chromium repository. This is sort of a copyright information - something similar to third_party/apple/LICENSE. What do you suggest I put here?
On 2010/03/26 16:43:52, alokp wrote: > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005/diff/1/3#newcode7 > third_party/gles2_book/LICENSE:7: http://www.opengles-book.com > There is no license available for this code. These are just code samples from a > book made available online by the book authors. I had got it cleared by the > Legal team before submitting it to chromium repository. If we are redistributing someone else's copyrighted work, we'd better have some sort of license to it! Can you ask whoever from legal approved this about it?
+dannyb, benlee, hbridge who were involved in the discussion before submitting this code.
On 2010/03/26 16:51:04, alokp wrote: > +dannyb, benlee, hbridge who were involved in the discussion before submitting > this code. (Context for lawyers: I'm trying to make our build scripts automatically integrate all third-party licenses into about:credits, as well as prevent people from checking in code where the license isn't clear.)
If I remember, these were trivial length sample code, so i wasn't worried. If not, and i'm misremembering, i'll look deeper. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2010/03/26 16:51:04, alokp wrote: >> >> +dannyb, benlee, hbridge who were involved in the discussion before >> submitting >> this code. > > (Context for lawyers: I'm trying to make our build scripts automatically > integrate all third-party licenses into about:credits, as well as prevent > people > from checking in code where the license isn't clear.) > > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >
The samples from the OpenGL ES 2.0 Programming Guide are pretty trivial, and they don't have an explicit license in the code. I can't imagine there would be any problems incorporating them. GLEW is the significant one and Alok's changes take care of that (thanks). LGTM On 2010/03/26 17:38:51, Daniel Berlin wrote: > If I remember, these were trivial length sample code, so i wasn't worried. > If not, and i'm misremembering, i'll look deeper. > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, <mailto:evan@chromium.org> wrote: > > On 2010/03/26 16:51:04, alokp wrote: > >> > >> +dannyb, benlee, hbridge who were involved in the discussion before > >> submitting > >> this code. > > > > (Context for lawyers: I'm trying to make our build scripts automatically > > integrate all third-party licenses into about:credits, as well as prevent > > people > > from checking in code where the license isn't clear.) > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 > > >
Ok, in that case, can you leave out the LICENSE file? I check the presence of a LICENSE as whether we have a LICENSE or not.
I do not understand. If I leave out the license file license.py will not pass. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: > Ok, in that case, can you leave out the LICENSE file? I check the presence > of a > LICENSE as whether we have a LICENSE or not. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >
On 2010/03/26 18:05:19, alokp wrote: > I do not understand. If I leave out the license file license.py will not pass. Er, good point. :) How about: can you put text in the LICENSE file that explains why we think we're ok to use this code? The text you have in the LICENSE file is metadata that is better left in the README. Alternatively, we have an exception list in license.py; maybe extending that with a comment would be more appropriate.
I like the idea of keeping the LICENSE file with text explaining that there is no license for this trivial piece of code. Danny: Could you suggest text for LICENSE file. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2010/03/26 18:05:19, alokp wrote: >> >> I do not understand. If I leave out the license file license.py will not >> pass. > > Er, good point. :) > > How about: can you put text in the LICENSE file that explains why we think > we're > ok to use this code? The text you have in the LICENSE file is metadata that > is > better left in the README. > > Alternatively, we have an exception list in license.py; maybe extending that > with a comment would be more appropriate. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >
The source files include the following header. We can include that in the LICENSE file. It's weird, but it's the only real guidance we have from the publisher on their site or in the tar ball. Cheers -- Ben // // Book: OpenGL(R) ES 2.0 Programming Guide // Authors: Aaftab Munshi, Dan Ginsburg, Dave Shreiner // ISBN-10: 0321502795 // ISBN-13: 9780321502797 // Publisher: Addison-Wesley Professional // URLs: http://safari.informit.com/9780321563835 // http://www.opengles-book.com // On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Alok Priyadarshi <alokp@chromium.org> wrote: > I like the idea of keeping the LICENSE file with text explaining that > there is no license for this trivial piece of code. > Danny: Could you suggest text for LICENSE file. > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: >> On 2010/03/26 18:05:19, alokp wrote: >>> >>> I do not understand. If I leave out the license file license.py will not >>> pass. >> >> Er, good point. :) >> >> How about: can you put text in the LICENSE file that explains why we think >> we're >> ok to use this code? The text you have in the LICENSE file is metadata that >> is >> better left in the README. >> >> Alternatively, we have an exception list in license.py; maybe extending that >> with a comment would be more appropriate. >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >> >
That is exactly what I did in my original CL. LGTM then? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Benjamin Lee <benlee@google.com> wrote: > The source files include the following header. We can include that in > the LICENSE file. It's weird, but it's the only real guidance we have > from the publisher on their site or in the tar ball. Cheers -- Ben > > // > // Book: OpenGL(R) ES 2.0 Programming Guide > // Authors: Aaftab Munshi, Dan Ginsburg, Dave Shreiner > // ISBN-10: 0321502795 > // ISBN-13: 9780321502797 > // Publisher: Addison-Wesley Professional > // URLs: http://safari.informit.com/9780321563835 > // http://www.opengles-book.com > // > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Alok Priyadarshi <alokp@chromium.org> wrote: >> I like the idea of keeping the LICENSE file with text explaining that >> there is no license for this trivial piece of code. >> Danny: Could you suggest text for LICENSE file. >> >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On 2010/03/26 18:05:19, alokp wrote: >>>> >>>> I do not understand. If I leave out the license file license.py will not >>>> pass. >>> >>> Er, good point. :) >>> >>> How about: can you put text in the LICENSE file that explains why we think >>> we're >>> ok to use this code? The text you have in the LICENSE file is metadata that >>> is >>> better left in the README. >>> >>> Alternatively, we have an exception list in license.py; maybe extending that >>> with a comment would be more appropriate. >>> >>> http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >>> >> >
That is exactly what I did in my original CL. LGTM then?
LGTM I think we should keep stuff in the LICENSE file so we know in the future On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM, <alokp@chromium.org> wrote: > That is exactly what I did in my original CL. LGTM then? > > http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >
lgtm2 On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb@google.com> wrote: > LGTM > > I think we should keep stuff in the LICENSE file so we know in the future > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM, <alokp@chromium.org> wrote: >> That is exactly what I did in my original CL. LGTM then? >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/1340005 >> >
LGTM2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
