Dear all,
When discussing with Reinhard how the FSFE's technical teams can comply with REUSE, we wondered which files actually need a license header. In the current practices, REUSE only speaks about "source code files", but also about "each file".
For our code files, the case it quite obvious. For our community database, an exemplary file is [^1].
But what about a Dockerfile (like [^2]). IANAL, but it seems like such simple instructions do not meet the threshold of originality. Do they still need license header? And would that rather be a code licence like GPL, or a content licence like CC?
We also wondered if and how CSS files can be licensed according to REUSE.
Best, Max
PS: I am aware that these might also be more general licensing questions, but I think that REUSE should provide answers to those as well.
[^1]: https://git.fsfe.org/fsfe-ams/fsfe-cd-front/src/branch/master/fsfe_cd_front/...
[^2]: https://git.fsfe.org/fsfe-ams/fsfe-cd-front/src/branch/master/Dockerfile
Hi, all!
Please let me add one thought:
Am 08.04.19 um 11:52 schrieb Max Mehl:
But what about a Dockerfile (like [^2]). IANAL, but it seems like such simple instructions do not meet the threshold of originality. Do they still need license header? And would that rather be a code licence like GPL, or a content licence like CC?
IANAL as well, but I think a very central question is what constitutes a separate work, and what is one big work.
Based on the assumption that the splitting of source code into separate files should not influence its copyrightability, I would assume that all files belonging to the same work are covered by the copyright of the work, even if the content of the file itself may be trivial.
Of course the question remains whether the instructions to build, configure, test, install, or deploy a program are part of the program (i.e. one and the same work), or they constitue separate works.
Thanks,
Hi Max, Reinhard,
My view is that copyright notices are free (read: gratis). It doesn't cost you anything to slap a copyright notice on something, and it seems incredibly unlikely to me that you will face legal repercussions if you put a copyright notice on an uncopyrightable work.
So I just put copyright notices on things that mightn't otherwise be creative copyrightable works. But maybe that's an incredibly naive approach.
One problem I do face, however, is that the licence often doesn't make sense for miscellaneous files. A lot of licences refer to "software" and use very technical language. When I do my translations for GNOME and put the "This file is distributed under the same license as $PACKAGE" notice at the top, I'm releasing non-software under a licence that might say:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")
The translation is not software and it stretches the definition of what it means to be a "documentation file".
But in practice this hasn't caused any issues.
With kindness, Carmen
Hullo,
do we want to include at least the LQ (if not Legal) team back into this discussion, to have more legal minds look at it?
On ponedeljek, 08. april 2019 13:51:51 CEST Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
and it seems incredibly unlikely to me that you will face legal repercussions if you put a copyright notice on an uncopyrightable work.
Most likely true, if we’re talking about something that is perhaps not copyrightable or arguably so (e.g. config, build, header files, etc.).
Now, if you were to slap your copyright notice on someone else’s work (and not yours), it could qualify as plagiarism though.
When I do my translations for GNOME and put the "This file is distributed under the same license as $PACKAGE" notice at the top, I'm
The “licensed same as X” can be problematic, esp. if X’s license later changes (or X disappears, gets renames) and then you don’t know which one applies etc. etc.
Which I imagine is part of the reason why REUSE spec calls for an explicit SPDX ID.
The translation is not software and it stretches the definition of what it means to be a "documentation file".
True. Luckily, more and more project realise that code and docs (and fonts and icons, sounds, etc.) should have different licenses
BTW, there is a public discussion on how to handle this here (and in the issues linked therein): https://github.com/reusesoftware/reuse/issues/14
IMHO, I think for stuff that you are either think is not copyrightable to start with and/or you’re pretty confident it is so trivial it at least shouldn’t be, just release that under CC0-1.0 to avoid any questions.
(The only issue with CC0-1.0 might be that it explicitly does not license any patents, so it might trigger some companies’ lawyers. But then again, I really wonder where they think of finding a patent¹ in an icon or config file.)
cheers, Matija Šuklje — 1 Before anyone mentions Apple, that was a _design patent_, which is USA-speak for what in Europe is commonly called a _model_ (i.e. a distinct 2D or 3D object, but not a trade mark).