gh-libtom/libtomcrypt
Watch
1
0
Fork
You've already forked libtomcrypt
 0
Code Issues 42 Pull requests 17 Releases 9 Wiki Activity

Remove reference to public domain software #134

Closed
mpherg wants to merge 1 commit from develop into develop
pull from: develop
merge into: gh-libtom:develop
Conversation 9 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +1 -17
mpherg commented 2016-10-28 15:19:45 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

"Public domain" isn't a license, and it causes all sorts of problems for
lawyers if we want to use it. Remove public domain and just leave the WTF
license, which I believe is what the author is really concerned about.

"Public domain" [isn't a license](http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225), and it causes all sorts of problems for lawyers if we want to use it. Remove public domain and just leave the WTF license, which I believe is what the author is really concerned about.
coveralls commented 2016-10-28 15:31:58 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 85.676% when pulling 5ee881c7e1 on mpherg:develop into f784793891 on libtom:develop.

[![Coverage Status](https://coveralls.io/builds/8564112/badge)](https://coveralls.io/builds/8564112) Coverage remained the same at 85.676% when pulling **5ee881c7e10505786037b1f855784491d03b04e5 on mpherg:develop** into **f7847938919a15732884641be6bee3e8fa5862dc on libtom:develop**.
mpherg commented 2016-10-28 15:37:00 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Or you could simply use the unlicense.

Or you could simply use the [unlicense](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/).
Scarletts commented 2016-12-14 19:54:46 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

@mpherg The author of that article has changed his mind:

I admit that I have argued for years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in
retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS license that I trust more.

Source

from djb's page on public domain

I would conclude that this is controversial, but there's also been controversy around the legal interpretation of fairly clear open source licenses... better just to wait for the ridiculous copyright system to fall apart, no? :)

If you trust the WTFPL, the public domain declaration is irrelevant anyway, so this is a non-issue.

@mpherg The author of that article has changed his mind: > I admit that I have argued for years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS license that I trust more. [Source](https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-March/001679.html) from [djb's page on public domain](https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html) I would conclude that this is controversial, but there's also been controversy around the legal interpretation of fairly clear open source licenses... better just to wait for the ridiculous copyright system to fall apart, no? :) If you trust the WTFPL, the public domain declaration is irrelevant anyway, so this is a non-issue.
sjaeckel commented 2017-02-05 04:19:41 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

If you trust the WTFPL, the public domain declaration is irrelevant anyway, so this is a non-issue.

therefor closing this as non-issue

> If you trust the WTFPL, the public domain declaration is irrelevant anyway, so this is a non-issue. therefor closing this as non-issue
mpherg commented 2017-02-05 08:09:13 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Unfortunately our lawyers disagree with this interpretation of public domain. I guess we will have to find some other library.

Unfortunately our lawyers disagree with this interpretation of public domain. I guess we will have to find some other library.
sjaeckel commented 2017-02-05 08:46:32 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Why can't you just use the WTFPL license? Therefor it's dual licensed...

...or even just take it and re-license it under whatever license you want... as in:

  1. click on "fork"

  2. modify the LICENSE file in your own fork of the project

  3. refer your lawyers to this fork

Why can't you just use the WTFPL license? Therefor it's dual licensed... ...or even just take it and re-license it under whatever license you want... as in: 1. click on "fork" 2. modify the LICENSE file in your own fork of the project 3. refer your lawyers to this fork
tomstdenis commented 2017-02-05 09:13:41 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

This reminds me of dealing with Sandisk about 10 years ago. They also didn't like the public domain license. So I told them for a $5000 fee I'd license it to them under a proprietary license. They surprisingly didn't accept that.

The "public domain" really is a thing in the USA. Works that have aged out their copyright terms are license free and within the public's domain.

Or do you argue that Hamlet is a copyrighted text?

This reminds me of dealing with Sandisk about 10 years ago. They also didn't like the public domain license. So I told them for a $5000 fee I'd license it to them under a proprietary license. They surprisingly didn't accept that. The "public domain" really is a thing in the USA. Works that have aged out their copyright terms are license free and within the public's domain. Or do you argue that Hamlet is a copyrighted text?
mpherg commented 2017-02-05 12:01:13 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Our lawyers argue that if the work is in the public domain (even with a dual licensing model), the author (i.e. copyright holder) may at some future date choose to apply a restrictive or proprietary license, and thus leave users (my company, for instance) at risk. This risk exists until a license is applied.

In the end this is your work and you can do whatever you want with it, and I respect that. Thanks for the consideration.

Our lawyers argue that if the work is in the public domain (even with a dual licensing model), the author (i.e. copyright holder) may at some future date choose to apply a restrictive or proprietary license, and thus leave users (my company, for instance) at risk. This risk exists until a license is applied. In the end this is your work and you can do whatever you want with it, and I respect that. Thanks for the consideration.
mpherg commented 2017-02-05 12:03:26 -06:00 (Migrated from github.com)

And your copyright hasn't expired yet, unless you have been dead for 70 years (https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html). Hamlet is a bit older.

And your copyright hasn't expired yet, unless you have been dead for 70 years (https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html). Hamlet is a bit older.

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
bug

   
duplicate

   
enhancement

   
feature

   
help wanted

   
improve API

   
invalid

   
needs documentation

   
not-planned
This ticket is not planned to be implemented and/or fixed from the core team.

  
rtfm

   
stale

   
support

   
wishlist
No labels
bug
duplicate
enhancement
feature
help wanted
improve API
invalid
needs documentation
not-planned
rtfm
stale
support
wishlist
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
v1.18.0
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
gh-libtom/libtomcrypt!134
No description provided.