Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What license does this software use? #7

Closed
jamesan opened this issue Dec 30, 2014 · 12 comments
Closed

What license does this software use? #7

jamesan opened this issue Dec 30, 2014 · 12 comments

Comments

@jamesan
Copy link

jamesan commented Dec 30, 2014

I'm assuming everything in this repository is open source/copy-left like GPLv2 or GPLv3, but it doesn't seem to indicate explicitly. Neither this repo, nor its predecessor, https://github.com/wertarbyte/autorandr, nor any references to autorandr or autodisper return any clues.

I'm updating Arch Linux's user contributed AUR package for autorandr and noticed its license field is blank. This would greatly help in my housekeeping of that package build. Thanks!

@phillipberndt
Copy link
Owner

The original author didn't give autorandr an OSS licence, see wertarbyte/autorandr#24, and has not replied to requests for over a year now. I'd guess that the other authors that contributed over the years would be willing to GPL the code, but without Stefan's consent, we AFAIK can't license autorandr unless we rewrite his code.

autorandr has four non-trivial parts: Storing configurations, loading configurations, fingerprinting and auto configuration. tachylatus has recently rewritten the part that is responsible for loading, and also most of the part that stores away configurations. Auto configuration was introduced by Timo Bingmann. The detection code (setup_fp) still is the one by Stefan.

What we could do is to rewrite the fingerprinting from scratch. IANAL, but I believe that the new author could then, together with Timo and Helge (tachylatus), license our version of autorandr. I'll CC them both, and also wertarbyte. He recently committed to another repository, so he might read this!

@phillipberndt
Copy link
Owner

@wertarbyte @tachylatus @bingmann What's your opinion on this?!

@bingmann
Copy link
Contributor

I'm happy with whatever open-source license you're happy with.

@tachylatus
Copy link
Contributor

I second bingmann's opinion :-)

@phillipberndt
Copy link
Owner

Let's go with the GPL then. I already reworked the fingerprinting, but after doing some research on the topic I believe that we need to have all authors' consent. Further contributors were @chrisdunder, @maciex, @stormc, @mrj10 and @formorer. Another script within this repository was written by @queezythegreat.

Do you consent with publishing your contributions to autorandr under the terms of the GPL 3?

@formorer
Copy link
Contributor

formorer commented Jan 2, 2015

On Fri, 02 Jan 2015, Phillip Berndt wrote:

Let's go with the GPL then. I already reworked the fingerprinting, but after doing some research on the topic I believe that we need to have all authors' consent. Further contributors were @chrisdunder, @maciex, @stormc, @mrj10 and @formorer. Another scripts within this repository was written by @queezythegreat.

Do you consent with publishing your contributions to autorandr under the terms of the GPL 3?
I would prefer MIT, but GPL is also fine.

Alex

@queezythegreat
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, I think both MIT and GPL are fine, I have no objections. I also like the MPL License 2.0.

@stormc
Copy link
Contributor

stormc commented Jan 2, 2015

I'm fine with any license you find appropriate

@maciex
Copy link
Contributor

maciex commented Jan 2, 2015

I think GPL is fine.

phillipberndt added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 7, 2015
In order to resolve bug #7, we need to remove non-trivial pieces of code
by @wertarbyte, who does not react to requests currently. All other
authors agreed to any suitable OSS license. See
 #7
for further discussion.

A side-effect of my reimplementation is that both methods now return the
same fingerprint, such that they are interchangeable. A downside is that
the fingerprints change with this version.
@phillipberndt
Copy link
Owner

In bug #8, tachylatus suggested to rework the storage/application of configurations to account for pluggable graphics cards. My comment there might also be relevant to this issue:

Since this is a major change, let's wait a few days with this: Regarding the licensing issue #7, I noticed that much of wertarbyte's code is too trivial to be rewritten in another way, and I don't know enough about copyright law to be absolutely certain that this is not a problem. I wrote him an email yesterday, and hopefully he'll reply. If he doesn't, this conceptual change would be a great opportunity to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, keeping configuration/parameter compatibility of course. (autorandr isn't that big/complicated, after all.. and we could switch to Python or Perl to ditch the awk/sed scripts.)

The background is that in the meantime, I've read that such trivial code lines could still be a problem (there is an example with a copyrighted /bin/true on google). That what we work with here is a fork of wertarbyte's code obviously doesn't make that simpler. I don't believe that autorandr will ever be the object of a lawsuit, or that wertarbyte will sue anyone about it, but I also don't want to be the one to take the chance that I'm wrong. So if wertarbyte does not reply, we'll have multiple choices:

  • Someone of you forks my license branch, optionally reverts bbe8f8b, and adds a copyright notice at the top. We'll all work with that code base, from then on.
  • We switch to a true rewrite. This could either be another bash script (in which case we could reuse much, do a git blame on autorandr in the license branch), or be in another language, as written above. Here's a quick showcase of how this could be done in Python. The script should be fully (except the configuration file) compatible with autorandr by now (and it additionally supports transformation matrices, gamma levels, refresh rates & reflections), but still
    This is very early and experimental code, and I haven't tested it very much. [..] Please consider this as a suggestion on where we could go with autorandr rather than something I'd like to impose on anyone.. I'm open to suggestions.
    tachylatus started [a perl version](https://github.com/tachylatus/autorandr/blob/perl-experiment/autorandr.pl), if you'd prefer that. Or, if you'd prefer the rewrite option and to stick with bash, go ahead and do that.

I'm fine with any of these.

@ccdunder
Copy link
Contributor

I prefer GPL.

~ cd
On Jan 7, 2015 10:10 AM, "Phillip Berndt" [email protected] wrote:

In bug #7 #7,
tachylatus suggested to rework the storage/application of configurations to
account for pluggable graphics cards. My comment there might also be
relevant to this issue:

Since this is a major change, let's wait a few days with this: Regarding
the licensing issue #7
#7, I noticed that
much of wertarbyte's code is too trivial to be rewritten in another way,
and I don't know enough about copyright law to be absolutely certain that
this is not a problem. I wrote him an email yesterday, and hopefully he'll
reply. If he doesn't, this conceptual change would be a great opportunity
to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, keeping configuration/parameter
compatibility of course. (autorandr isn't that big/complicated, after all..
and we could switch to Python or Perl to ditch the awk/sed scripts.)

The background is that in the meantime, I've read that such trivial code
lines could still be a problem (there is an example with a copyrighted
/bin/true on google). That what we work with here is a fork of
wertarbyte's code obviously doesn't make that simpler. I don't believe that
autorandr will ever be the object of a lawsuit, or that wertarbyte will sue
anyone about it, but I also don't want to be the one to take the chance
that I'm wrong. So if wertarbyte does not reply, we'll have multiple
choices:

  • Someone of you forks my license branch
    https://github.com/phillipberndt/autorandr/tree/license, optionally
    reverts bbe8f8b
    bbe8f8b,
    and adds a copyright notice at the top. We'll all work with that code base,
    from then on.

  • We switch to a true rewrite. This could either be another bash
    script (in which case we could reuse much, do a git blame on autorandr
    in the license branch), or be in another language, as written above. Here's
    a quick showcase of how this could be done in Python
    https://github.com/phillipberndt/autorandr/blob/license/autorandr.py.
    The script should be fully (except the configuration file) compatible with
    autorandr by now (and it additionally supports transformation matrices,
    gamma levels, refresh rates & reflections), but still

    This is very early and experimental code, and I haven't tested it very
    much. [..] Please consider this as a suggestion on where we could go with
    autorandr rather than something I'd like to impose on anyone.. I'm open to
    suggestions.

    tachylatus started a perl version
    https://github.com/tachylatus/autorandr/blob/perl-experiment/autorandr.pl,
    if you'd prefer that. Or, if you'd prefer the rewrite option and to stick
    with bash, go ahead and do that.

I'm fine with any of these.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)
.

phillipberndt added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2015
See #7
and wertarbyte/autorandr#24, where the
original author wrote:

> After a while, I finally got around to this - licence should be GPLv3,
> so feel free to package :-)
@phillipberndt
Copy link
Owner

wertarbyte just commented in wertarbyte/autorandr#24

After a while, I finally got around to this - licence should be GPLv3, so feel free to package :-)

Which means that autorandr is now officially GPLv3. For now, I've reverted the commit that removed parts of his code from the license branch and merged the branch into master. I'll still have to decide on how to move forward with the Python version. I will definitively maintain both for some time, but whether I do this in a single branch, two branches, repositories, under which name, etc. is all open. If you're interested in the future of both versions (e.g. if you maintain a package for this fork), subscribe to #12 for updates on that.

phillipberndt added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2015
In order to resolve bug #7, we need to remove non-trivial pieces of code
by @wertarbyte, who does not react to requests currently. All other
authors agreed to any suitable OSS license. See
 #7
for further discussion.

A side-effect of my reimplementation is that both methods now return the
same fingerprint, such that they are interchangeable. A downside is that
the fingerprints change with this version.
phillipberndt added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2015
See #7
and wertarbyte/autorandr#24, where the
original author wrote:

> After a while, I finally got around to this - licence should be GPLv3,
> so feel free to package :-)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants