Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

Rik-4
On 01/07/2020 09:00 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
Subject:
Re: Maintaining copyright notices
From:
"John W. Eaton" [hidden email]
Date:
01/06/2020 09:52 PM
To:
Octave Maintainers List [hidden email]
List-Post:
[hidden email]
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Precedence:
list
MIME-Version:
1.0
References:
[hidden email]
In-Reply-To:
[hidden email]
Message-ID:
[hidden email]
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Message:
2

On 1/3/20 7:10 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

To minimize the difficulty of maintaining the copyright notices, I would like to change Octave's sources to use what is described here

https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html
> [...]
>
I'm ready to make these changes prior to the 6.1 release but would like to hear from others before proceeding.

Thanks for the feedback.

I checked in the following changesets to use "The Octave Developers" for copyright notices in most source files and to update the copyright year for those to 2020:

  http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/b442ec6dda5c
  http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/1891570abac8

As stated in the commit message for the first changesetI skipped most of the files in the directories

  doc
  libgui/qterminal
  liboctave/external
  m4

I'm not sure what to do with the copyright and authorship of the Octave manual and, although we have modified some of them, the files in the other directories are mostly imported from elsewhere so I don't know that we should place the Octave copyright on them.

I agree with external code being excluded.  For the manual, what are the arguments against using the same system as for the code (consistency normally being a good thing)?


I used a script to generate the initial COPYRIGHT.md file.  I'm not sure that it's necessary to add it to the hg archive, but I can share it if there is interest.

If it is a one-off script needed to create the first version then it doesn't require version control.  If it is a script that will need to be executed every time there is a new release then that should go somewhere in the hg archive, maybe build-aux/?


Comments and further suggestions?

I would change the visual formatting of the Copyright block.  Below is the current format as taken from wilkinson.m.

## Copyright (C) 1999-2020 The Octave Project Developers
##
## See the file COPYRIGHT.md in the top-level directory of this distribution
## or <https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html/>.
##
##
## This file is part of Octave.
##
## Octave 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 3 of the License, or
## (at your option) any later version.
##
## Octave 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 Octave; see the file COPYING.  If not, see
## <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

## -*- texinfo -*-d
## @deftypefn {} {} wilkinson (@var{n})
## Return the Wilkinson matrix of order @var{n}.
##
## Wilkinson matrices are symmetric and tridiagonal with pairs of nearly, but
## not exactly, equal eigenvalues.  They are useful in testing the behavior and
## performance of eigenvalue solvers.
##
## @seealso{rosser, eig}
## @end deftypefn

## Author: Peter Ekberg
##         (peda)

function retval = wilkinson (n)

  if (nargin != 1)
    print_usage ();
  endif

As a programmer, I acknowledge the Copyright but I don't want to be distracted by it.  I would like to be able to immediately find where the code (my interest) begins.  To do that, I would set off the Copyright block in some manner from the rest of the file.  A common demarcation might be a line of 80 '#' characters.  If this was chosen then I would probably want that same line at the start of the file so that the entire Copyright block is surrounded.  Another demarcation might be two newlines after the end of the GPL clauses.  Although copyright and license are different, I don't see the need to distinguish them so strongly by having two newlines after the copyright and before the GPL clauses.  I would take this back down to one newline.

Also, this file happens to still have an "Author:" line.  Is it still planned to remove these before the 6.1 release?

--Rik

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Link in Copyright Notices

siko1056
On 1/8/20 5:16 AM, Rik wrote:

>
> [...] Below is the current format as taken from wilkinson.m.
>
> ## Copyright (C) 1999-2020 The Octave Project Developers
> ##
> ## See the file COPYRIGHT.md in the top-level directory of this distribution
> ## or <https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html/>.
> ##
>
> [...]
>

@jwe: In your changeset you created all links
"https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html/" with trailing slash.  Is that a typo?

Shall I add COPYRIGHT.md to the Octave homepage to make the link
"https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html" part of the Jekyll-website, which
does not exist (404) yet?

Best,
Kai

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rik-4
On 1/7/20 3:16 PM, Rik wrote:
> On 01/07/2020 09:00 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I agree with external code being excluded.  For the manual, what are the
> arguments against using the same system as for the code (consistency
> normally being a good thing)?

I'm OK with using the same copyright notice for the manual especially
since much (most?) of it is made up of doc strings extracted from the
sources.  I was thinking more about whether we should continue to list
the authorship the same way as we have now?

>> I used a script to generate the initial COPYRIGHT.md file.  I'm not
>> sure that it's necessary to add it to the hg archive, but I can share
>> it if there is interest.
>
> If it is a one-off script needed to create the first version then it
> doesn't require version control.  If it is a script that will need to be
> executed every time there is a new release then that should go somewhere
> in the hg archive, maybe build-aux/?

No, it's not something that should need to be run again.  I think we
should just make corrections and maintain it mostly manually now.  We
can extract a list of most of the contributors for a given year from the
hg archive automatically, then insert them in the file or update
existing entries as needed.

> I would change the visual formatting of the Copyright block.  Below is
> the current format as taken from wilkinson.m.
>
> ## [...]
>
> function retval = wilkinson (n)
>
>    if (nargin != 1)
>      print_usage ();
>    endif
>
> As a programmer, I acknowledge the Copyright but I don't want to be
> distracted by it.  I would like to be able to immediately find where the
> code (my interest) begins.  To do that, I would set off the Copyright
> block in some manner from the rest of the file.  A common demarcation
> might be a line of 80 '#' characters.

I'm not a big fan of these kinds of markers, but it seems OK for the
copyright.  How about 72 characters?  I don't know why, but like seeing
a margin on the right side.  Though line widths are kind of arbitrary
now that we are not limited by 80x24 CRT displays.  Also, maybe use C++
style '//' comments for these copyright notices as well?

> Another demarcation might be two newlines after the end of the GPL clauses.

After doing some experiments with the comment markers above and below
the text, I'm not sure that's really necessary.

> Although copyright and
> license are different, I don't see the need to distinguish them so
> strongly by having two newlines after the copyright and before the GPL
> clauses.  I would take this back down to one newline.

OK.

> Also, this file happens to still have an "Author:" line.  Is it still
> planned to remove these before the 6.1 release?

Yes, I just didn't get that far yet.

jwe


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
In reply to this post by siko1056
On 1/8/20 12:43 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:
> On 1/8/20 5:16 AM, Rik wrote:

> @jwe: In your changeset you created all links
> "https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html/" with trailing slash.  Is that a typo?

Oh, I guess it is a mistake.  I used the same format as
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/> without thinking that the link to the
licenses page is a directory(?) name.  I thought that was just part of
the markup.  And now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why that
form is the recommended one for the copyright notice.  But that's what
is in the example in the COPYING file.

> Shall I add COPYRIGHT.md to the Octave homepage to make the link
> "https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html" part of the Jekyll-website, which
> does not exist (404) yet?

Yes, it would be great if you could do that, though the file may change
a bit more before the 6.1 release so it would also be OK to wait until
that happens.

jwe


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

siko1056
On 1/8/20 3:15 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 1/8/20 12:43 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:
>
>> @jwe: In your changeset you created all links
>> "https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html/" with trailing slash.  Is that a
>> typo?
>
> Oh, I guess it is a mistake.  I used the same format as
> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/> without thinking that the link to the
> licenses page is a directory(?) name.  I thought that was just part of
> the markup.  And now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why that
> form is the recommended one for the copyright notice.  But that's what
> is in the example in the COPYING file.
>

Well, I think the FSF decided to favor a folder permalink, rather than a
document to stay flexible.  Basically both versions

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/

now redirect to

   https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

Personally, I prefer the trailing slash in this case.  At least I have
the idea not to address a certain document, but to get redirected to some.

>> Shall I add COPYRIGHT.md to the Octave homepage to make the link
>> "https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html" part of the Jekyll-website, which
>> does not exist (404) yet?
>
> Yes, it would be great if you could do that, though the file may change
> a bit more before the 6.1 release so it would also be OK to wait until
> that happens.
>
> jwe
>

Okay, then I just add one version now for testing that everything is
working, and update at the time of the release again.

Best,
Kai

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 1/8/20 1:29 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:

> Well, I think the FSF decided to favor a folder permalink, rather than a
> document to stay flexible.  Basically both versions
>
>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses
>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/
>
> now redirect to
>
>     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
>
> Personally, I prefer the trailing slash in this case.  At least I have
> the idea not to address a certain document, but to get redirected to some.

Ah, OK.  I think we could do the same and use
<https://octave.org/copyright/>.  Would that be better?

> Okay, then I just add one version now for testing that everything is
> working, and update at the time of the release again.

Thanks.

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

siko1056
On 1/8/20 3:33 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 1/8/20 1:29 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:
>
>> Well, I think the FSF decided to favor a folder permalink, rather than a
>> document to stay flexible.  Basically both versions
>>
>>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses
>>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/
>>
>> now redirect to
>>
>>     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
>>
>> Personally, I prefer the trailing slash in this case.  At least I have
>> the idea not to address a certain document, but to get redirected to
>> some.
>
> Ah, OK.  I think we could do the same and use
> <https://octave.org/copyright/>.  Would that be better?

Yes, good idea, I think so.  Maybe one day in the future nobody likes
html-files any longer, but we have spread
"https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html" as permalink to the world ;-)

  https://octave.org/copyright/

is better.

>> Okay, then I just add one version now for testing that everything is
>> working, and update at the time of the release again.
>
> Thanks.
>
> jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

Rik-4
In reply to this post by John W. Eaton
On 01/07/2020 09:58 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 1/7/20 3:16 PM, Rik wrote:
>> On 01/07/2020 09:00 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> I agree with external code being excluded.  For the manual, what are the
>> arguments against using the same system as for the code (consistency
>> normally being a good thing)?
>
> I'm OK with using the same copyright notice for the manual especially
> since much (most?) of it is made up of doc strings extracted from the
> sources.  I was thinking more about whether we should continue to list
> the authorship the same way as we have now?

Mostly because this is yet one more decision to make which requires careful
thought, I would just punt and leave it as is for now.

>
>>> I used a script to generate the initial COPYRIGHT.md file.  I'm not
>>> sure that it's necessary to add it to the hg archive, but I can share
>>> it if there is interest.
>>
>> If it is a one-off script needed to create the first version then it
>> doesn't require version control.  If it is a script that will need to be
>> executed every time there is a new release then that should go somewhere
>> in the hg archive, maybe build-aux/?
>
> No, it's not something that should need to be run again.  I think we
> should just make corrections and maintain it mostly manually now.  We can
> extract a list of most of the contributors for a given year from the hg
> archive automatically, then insert them in the file or update existing
> entries as needed.
>
>> I would change the visual formatting of the Copyright block.  Below is
>> the current format as taken from wilkinson.m.
>>
>> ## [...]
>>
>> function retval = wilkinson (n)
>>
>>    if (nargin != 1)
>>      print_usage ();
>>    endif
>>
>> As a programmer, I acknowledge the Copyright but I don't want to be
>> distracted by it.  I would like to be able to immediately find where the
>> code (my interest) begins.  To do that, I would set off the Copyright
>> block in some manner from the rest of the file.  A common demarcation
>> might be a line of 80 '#' characters.
>
> I'm not a big fan of these kinds of markers, but it seems OK for the
> copyright.  How about 72 characters?  I don't know why, but like seeing a
> margin on the right side.  Though line widths are kind of arbitrary now
> that we are not limited by 80x24 CRT displays.  Also, maybe use C++ style
> '//' comments for these copyright notices as well?

I don't think the length is particularly important as long as the eye
notices the break.  So sure, 72 characters.

I think it would be fine to match the comment character to the language and
so have a line of 72 '/' characters as the break in C++ files as well as
starting out each line with "//" instead of "##".

>
>> Another demarcation might be two newlines after the end of the GPL clauses.
>
> After doing some experiments with the comment markers above and below the
> text, I'm not sure that's really necessary.

I only propose the two newlines if the line markers weren't used. 
Otherwise, it is probably overkill.

--Rik


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
In reply to this post by siko1056
On 1/8/20 1:39 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:

> Yes, good idea, I think so.  Maybe one day in the future nobody likes
> html-files any longer, but we have spread
> "https://octave.org/COPYRIGHT.html" as permalink to the world ;-)
>
>    https://octave.org/copyright/
>
> is better.

It looks like you made this change.  Thanks.

I pushed an update for the COPYRIGHT.md file here:

   http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/a7c8d2d72120

Could you update the file on the website?

Thanks,

jwe


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rik-4
On 1/8/20 11:42 AM, Rik wrote:
> On 01/07/2020 09:58 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:

>> I'm OK with using the same copyright notice for the manual especially
>> since much (most?) of it is made up of doc strings extracted from the
>> sources.  I was thinking more about whether we should continue to list
>> the authorship the same way as we have now?
>
> Mostly because this is yet one more decision to make which requires careful
> thought, I would just punt and leave it as is for now.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

>> I'm not a big fan of these kinds of markers, but it seems OK for the
>> copyright.  How about 72 characters?  I don't know why, but like seeing a
>> margin on the right side.  Though line widths are kind of arbitrary now
>> that we are not limited by 80x24 CRT displays.  Also, maybe use C++ style
>> '//' comments for these copyright notices as well?
>
> I don't think the length is particularly important as long as the eye
> notices the break.  So sure, 72 characters.
>
> I think it would be fine to match the comment character to the language and
> so have a line of 72 '/' characters as the break in C++ files as well as
> starting out each line with "//" instead of "##".

I pushed the following changeset to do this and to also use
<https://octave.org/copyright/> instead of COPYRIGHT.html:

   http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/bd51beb6205e

Help with the following would be appreciated:

What are the correct accents/characters to use for the following names?

   Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez
   Nicolo' Giorgetti
   Nguy?n Gia Phong

Are the following names intentional, or should we be using full names?
Do we have a record of contributors who wish to remain semi-anonymous by
listing only single names or aliases of some kind?  I'll try to track
down the change that lists "Daniel" and see whether that one corresponds
to another Daniel already list.

   Amro
   Avlas
   Daniel
   Ederag
   LYH
   Melqart
   Nix
   cctsim

If there are any additional errors or omissions, please let me know and
I'll try to fix.

Thanks,

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Link in Copyright Notices

siko1056
In reply to this post by John W. Eaton
On 1/9/20 6:54 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:

>
> I pushed an update for the COPYRIGHT.md file here:
>
>   http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/a7c8d2d72120
>
> Could you update the file on the website?
>
> Thanks,
>
> jwe
>

Done, see https://octave.org/copyright/ .

Kai

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

Rik-4
In reply to this post by Rik-4
On 01/08/2020 05:36 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
Subject:
Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices
From:
"John W. Eaton" [hidden email]
Date:
01/08/2020 02:43 PM
To:
Rik [hidden email], [hidden email]
List-Post:
[hidden email]
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Precedence:
list
MIME-Version:
1.0
References:
[hidden email] <MTAwMDAzNy5ub21hZA.1578428180@quikprotect> [hidden email] <MTAwMDAyMC5ub21hZA.1578501736@quikprotect>
In-Reply-To:
<MTAwMDAyMC5ub21hZA.1578501736@quikprotect>
Message-ID:
[hidden email]
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Message:
4


I pushed the following changeset to do this and to also use <https://octave.org/copyright/> instead of COPYRIGHT.html:

  http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/bd51beb6205e

Help with the following would be appreciated:

What are the correct accents/characters to use for the following names?

  Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez
  Nicolo' Giorgetti
  Nguy?n Gia Phong

Are the following names intentional, or should we be using full names? Do we have a record of contributors who wish to remain semi-anonymous by listing only single names or aliases of some kind?  I'll try to track down the change that lists "Daniel" and see whether that one corresponds to another Daniel already list.

  Amro
  Avlas

Pretty sure both of the above wish to be semi-anonymous.

  Daniel
  Ederag

Ederag is still around the Octave project occasionally.  If he sees this he can decide if he wants credit in the Copyright and contributors file.

  LYH
  Melqart
  Nix
  cctsim

No idea.  The last three don't seem to even be in Mercurial's log. 

--Rik

If there are any additional errors or omissions, please let me know and I'll try to fix.

Thanks,

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 1/9/20 10:45 AM, Rik wrote:
> On 01/08/2020 05:36 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>>   LYH
>>   Melqart
>>   Nix
>>   cctsim
>>
> No idea.  The last three don't seem to even be in Mercurial's log.

Yeah, that was part of what made this a more difficult task.  I tried to
include anyone who was listed in an old ChangeLog file or source file or
who had (many years ago) assigned copyright to me.

jwe


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

ederag
In reply to this post by Rik-4
On jeudi 9 janvier 2020 16:45:35 CET Rik wrote:
> Ederag is still around the Octave project occasionally.  If he sees this he
> can decide if he wants credit in the Copyright and contributors file.

Thanks, the mercurial log and savannah patch tracker were enough for me,
but if even a few minor patches qualify, then "Ederag" is OK.

Just for information:
if at some point a license short-form identifier would be useful,
there is https://spdx.org/ids.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Further suggestions for Copyright Notices

Mike Miller-4
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 21:41:55 +0100, ederag wrote:
> Just for information:
> if at some point a license short-form identifier would be useful,
> there is https://spdx.org/ids.

Personally I find both the standard GPL license statement and the SPDX
identifier to be useful, and I have started using both together in my
projects. Concretely:

    ## Copyright (C) 2019 Mike Miller
    ## SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later
    ##
    ## 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 3 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, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.


I also updated Octave's parser in the version 6 branch so that the first
two lines can be swapped if the author wishes, and Octave will correctly
recognize "SPDX-License-Identifier" comment as the start of a license
block.

Cheers,

--
mike

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment