Tails

#1 Updated by sajolida 2017-12-17 16:33:56

• QA Check set to Ready for QA

Uzair added licensing information with c103222 and bfed454.

Is that enough? Otherwise give me instructions and I’ll do it.

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-22 08:34:35

• Subject changed from Clarify licenses in Tails Verification to Add missing copyright and license info in Tails Verification
• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
• Assignee changed from intrigeri to sajolida
• % Done changed from 0 to 20
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

Retitling the ticket as this is not merely about clarifying: at least for 3-clause BSD it’s about complying with the license of the code we redistribute.

You seem to have missed the fact that I’ve already replied to these changes by Uzair: https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2017-December/011938.html. And since then, the situation has changed (slightly), e.g. your code for Feature #15062 replaced the link to the upstream license with a string that is meant to be a URI but lacks “https://”.

Anyway, instead of pointing to licenses online (that may change and thus not be the license that applies to the copy we include), I recommend writing the complete copyright & license information for everything (our own code + vendorized libs) in a LICENSE file at the root of the Git repo, and then we don’t need to bother embedding such info in every file (and unavoidably forgetting some as is the case right now). When I say “complete license information”, I mean the full license text: vague shortcuts like “BSD License” are not enough because there are plenty of favours of that license; and at least the 3-clause BSD license requires shipping the full license text with distributed copies of the code.

If you need more instructions, let me know :)

#3 Updated by sajolida 2017-12-22 14:50:48

• Assignee changed from sajolida to intrigeri
• QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

I tried a bit harder with f72cd64.

Regarding the treatment I did previously with jQuery and Forge. The header in jQuery is what jQuery distributes themselves on they CDN so I thought it was good enough for us. And I applied a similar treatment to Forge.

Anyway, now we have more info :)

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2017-12-22 17:12:48

• Assignee changed from intrigeri to sajolida

> I tried a bit harder with f72cd64.

Thanks!

> Regarding the treatment I did previously with jQuery and Forge. The header in jQuery is what jQuery distributes themselves on they CDN so I thought it was good enough for us. And I applied a similar treatment to Forge.

Understood. Now, the fact the copyright holders violate their own license does not imply we can feel free to do it too.

I don’t want to bother you any further about the need for a copyright notice (in addition to including the license text itself), so I did what I felt was necessary: 5c1285145b4293c0c1723b5de38f2355f89c6a3c. I still miss copyright years for jQuery but at some point I have to stop being more pedantic than them about free sofware…

And I pushed a bugfix on top: 18c4a3cec4a18c53e08c598dd1fc879885b80781.

Please close as resolved if you’re happy with the current state of the master branch :)

#5 Updated by sajolida 2017-12-22 17:44:00

• Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
• QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

Thanks for the clarification about what upstream jQuery does :)

It’s good that I learned a bit more about the differences between “license info”, “copyright info”, and “copyright notice”.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-27 14:55:47

• Assignee deleted (sajolida)