On 2018-04-30 05:26, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2018, at 04:31, Joshua Root wrote: > >> On 2018-4-28 13:04 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> According to WikiPedia, "All rights reserved" has no effect in any legal >>> jurisdiction: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved >>> >>> Unless anyone knows otherwise, we may as well remove it everywhere. >> >> It's not even true since we explicitly grant rights to others in the >> license. > > Here's an in-depth post about this problem: > > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2121/mit-license-and-all-rights-reserved/4403#4403 > > It seems the phrase "All rights reserved" is contradictory and confusing in > the case of an open-source license, and yet, it is part of the BSD license > text. If we remove the phrase, can we still claim that we are using the BSD > license?
Interestingly, the phrase is not part of the OSI-approved BSD-3-Clause license text: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause >>>> @@ -11,7 +12,7 @@ >>>> # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >>>> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the >>>> # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >>>> -# 3. Neither the name of Apple Computer, Inc. nor the names of its >>>> +# 3. Neither the name of The MacPorts Project nor the names of its >>>> # contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from >>>> # this software without specific prior written permission. >>> >>> The attribution to Apple in the license text appears in many files, not >>> just this one. This file certainly didn't originate from Apple, but some >>> MacPorts source files did, and I don't know what the correct treatment of >>> those files is. Do we change them to MacPorts, since we maintain the files >>> now, or do we need to retain the mention of Apple in those files that Apple >>> originated, possibly adding our name to theirs? And if so, do we change >>> their name to Apple Inc., since that is their name now? If someone could >>> look up what the legally correct thing to do here is, that would be great. >>> Whatever the outcome, we should apply it to all files. >> >> Apple definitely retains the copyright on any portions of the code that >> were written at Apple. Their copyright notices and license should not be >> removed. We add our own notices for the portions we write. We can either >> choose to distribute those portions under the same license as Apple's >> portions (including clause 3 which specifically mentions Apple's name) >> or we can add our own license in addition, and the combined work would >> be subject to both. For the cargo port group, the mistake was introduced by me. I think I copied the license text from another port group, assuming all would use the same. I should have checked more thoroughly. Where would I find the license text to use for new files? Looking around now, shouldn't LICENSE in the top-level directory contain the license text we want? That file also explicitly mentions Apple and was added only a year ago [1]. Looking at it now, I would say it is incorrect. However, why do we add a license header to the port groups at all? We also do not add it to each Portfile. I think we should drop the license headers from all port groups. Rainer [1] https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/287
