Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
8769025:
Add match for another "MIT/X11 (BSD like) license" (Closed)
|
Created:
9 years ago by GeorgeY Modified:
9 years ago Reviewers:
Paweł Hajdan Jr. CC:
chromium-reviews, Ilya Sherman, open-source-third-party-reviews_google.com Base URL:
svn://chrome-svn/chrome/trunk/src/ Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionAdd match for another "ISC license"
BUG=none
TEST=checklicenses.py should work on third_party/libphonenumber
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=112799
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 4
Patch Set 2 : '' #Patch Set 3 : '' #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 4 : '' #Patch Set 5 : '' #Messages
Total messages: 11 (0 generated)
Sorry for nitpicking, but there may be some little details here that matter. http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:435: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee is hereby granted/) { Could you please show me the full text of the license? It seems more similar to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ISC than to MIT license. See the regexp just below, isn't it very similar to what you want? That seems to confirm the hypothesis that this is just a different wording of ISC license. However, "with or without fee" seems to be different from "without fee" only... Have you consulted open-source-third-party-reviews as said on http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries ? IANAL, but sometimes there are simple things that can make a license non-free. http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:437: } nit: This (only the last line) should be space-indented iirc.
http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:435: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee is hereby granted/) { On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > Could you please show me the full text of the license? It seems more similar to > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ISC than to MIT license. > > See the regexp just below, isn't it very similar to what you want? That seems to > confirm the hypothesis that this is just a different wording of ISC license. > > However, "with or without fee" seems to be different from "without fee" only... > Have you consulted open-source-third-party-reviews as said on > http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries ? IANAL, but > sometimes there are simple things that can make a license non-free. /* * The authors of this software are Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. * Copyright (c) 2002 by Lucent Technologies. * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting * documentation for such software. * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES MAKE ANY * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Mark agreed that it is a BSD-like license http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:437: } On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > nit: This (only the last line) should be space-indented iirc. Done.
On 2011/12/02 17:21:04, GeorgeY wrote: > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:435: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission > to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee > is hereby granted/) { > On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > > Could you please show me the full text of the license? It seems more similar > to > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ISC than to MIT license. > > > > See the regexp just below, isn't it very similar to what you want? That seems > to > > confirm the hypothesis that this is just a different wording of ISC license. > > > > However, "with or without fee" seems to be different from "without fee" > only... > > Have you consulted open-source-third-party-reviews as said on > > http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries ? IANAL, but > > sometimes there are simple things that can make a license non-free. > > /* > * The authors of this software are Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. > * Copyright (c) 2002 by Lucent Technologies. > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any > * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice > * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy > * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting > * documentation for such software. > * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED > * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES MAKE > ANY > * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY > * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > */ > > Mark agreed that it is a BSD-like license > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:437: } > On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > > nit: This (only the last line) should be space-indented iirc. > > Done. Oh, and the library itself (of which these 3 files are part of) is open-sourced by Google.
On 2011/12/02 17:26:13, GeorgeY wrote: > On 2011/12/02 17:21:04, GeorgeY wrote: > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > > File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > > third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:435: } elsif ($licensetext =~ > /Permission > > to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee > > is hereby granted/) { > > On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > > > Could you please show me the full text of the license? It seems more similar > > to > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ISC than to MIT license. > > > > > > See the regexp just below, isn't it very similar to what you want? That > seems > > to > > > confirm the hypothesis that this is just a different wording of ISC license. > > > > > > However, "with or without fee" seems to be different from "without fee" > > only... > > > Have you consulted open-source-third-party-reviews as said on > > > http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries ? IANAL, but > > > sometimes there are simple things that can make a license non-free. > > > > /* > > * The authors of this software are Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. > > * Copyright (c) 2002 by Lucent Technologies. > > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any > > * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice > > * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy > > * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting > > * documentation for such software. > > * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED > > * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES MAKE > > ANY > > * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY > > * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > */ > > > > Mark agreed that it is a BSD-like license > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/1/third_party/devscripts/licensec... > > third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:437: } > > On 2011/12/02 11:00:53, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > > > nit: This (only the last line) should be space-indented iirc. > > > > Done. > > Oh, and the library itself (of which these 3 files are part of) is open-sourced > by Google. Changed to ISC
http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:439: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee is hereby granted/) { This is very similar to the above regex. Could you just make the "with or" part optional? Something like "for any purpose (with or )?without fee".
On 2011/12/02 18:19:04, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... > File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... > third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:439: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission > to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee > is hereby granted/) { > This is very similar to the above regex. Could you just make the "with or" part > optional? > > Something like "for any purpose (with or )?without fee". sure
http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/8769025/diff/4001/third_party/devscripts/licen... third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:439: } elsif ($licensetext =~ /Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose without fee is hereby granted/) { On 2011/12/02 18:19:05, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote: > This is very similar to the above regex. Could you just make the "with or" part > optional? > > Something like "for any purpose (with or )?without fee". Sure. done.
*Conditional* LGTM: Please ask open-source-third-party-reviews (and I'd like to see the answer here for reference, if possible) whether omitting "with or without fee" and saying just "without fee" makes the license non-free. Note that it's not to make the landing harder, but Open Source distros like Debian, Ubuntu, and others care about this and are likely to raise similar questions. See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291 for more info. Thank you for patience with this and dealing with Perl. :)
thank you, and I *like* dealing with perl :) (It is my language of choice if I want to write a script on my home PC).
On 2011/12/02 18:45:09, GeorgeY wrote: > thank you, and I *like* dealing with perl :) (It is my language of choice if I > want to write a script on my home PC). Daniel: Its bsd like,and its fine Me: Looking on the wording with Pawel we agreed that ISC license is much closer in wording (see the cl). Is BSD-like a closer match? Could you confirm, and I change it then... Daniel: It doesn't really matter either way, they are both notice licenses. It is fairly close to mit as well. |
