[Nfd-dev] License boilerplate for code imported from NFD to ndn-cxx

[Junxiao Shi]

Hi Alex

Please include those rules in README-dev.md or on a wiki page.

Yours, Junxiao

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Alex Afanasyev <alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu
> wrote:

>
> On Oct 5, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Davide Pesavento <davide.pesavento at lip6.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Junxiao Shi
> > <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >> Dear folks
> >>
> >> Sometimes, code needs to be imported from NFD to ndn-cxx, for
> functional and
> >> technical reasons.
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, NFD code cannot be imported to ndn-cxx directly.
> >> NFD is GPL3; ndn-cxx is LGPL3.
> >> LGPL3 code cannot contain GPL3 code.
> >>
> >> The guideline given in ndn-cxx README-dev.md is to include a LGPL3
> license
> >> boilerplate for all contributions.
> >
> > I'm assuming that guideline refers only to new code (it's the only way
> > in which it can make sense). In this case you're not the sole author
> > of the code that you committed, therefore the guideline does not
> > apply.
>
> Guidelines are not the law, they are just guidelines that we recommend to
> use for our code.  Nothing more.
> One can disagree with guidelines and add something else, which is
> compatible with the library's or NFD's license in general.
>
> In this specific case, as Davide pointed out, we are required by the law
> to preserve the original copyright.  Technically speaking, we will need
> agreement with each copyright holder to change the license, but I hope this
> is not an issue at the moment.
>
> Again, for this specific case.  We should preserve the original copyright
> that was in NFD and explicitly list contributing authors (as there is no
> other place where they are listed).  I think we still can use the the
> generic ndn-cxx boilerplate, the original stuff can be put as a separate
> comment block in files.
>
> ---
> Alex
>
> >> Davide is disagreeing with this practice in a code review.
> >
> > I don't disagree with it in general. I disagree with what you did in
> > change #1288.
> >
> > IANAL, but applying this "practice" in this case is wrong and
> > constitutes a gross violation of copyright law, for two reasons.
> >
> > 1. You are relicensing code from GPL to LGPL. This requires explicit
> > approval from every copyright holder (i.e. author) of the code that is
> > being relicensed.
> >
> > 2. You dropped all copyright holders except "The Regents of University
> > of California". I believe this is a violation of the GPLv3.
> >
> > Best,
> > Davide
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nfd-dev mailing list
> > Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> > http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20141005/cd80c2b9/attachment.html>