FAQ
Hello world,

the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt
when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it
is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk
space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt
files from your contributed projects. Thanks.

$ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l
223

(If these files don't get removed, we might remove them for you, at
some point in time.)

--
Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/

Search Discussions

  • Earl Miles at Oct 8, 2006 at 7:04 am

    Dries Buytaert wrote:
    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l
    223
    The find for LICENSE.txt only comes up with 72 -- which is still a
    surprisingly high number, but not as amazing as 223.
  • Dries Buytaert at Oct 8, 2006 at 8:22 am

    On 08 Oct 2006, at 09:04, Earl Miles wrote:

    Dries Buytaert wrote:
    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l
    223
    The find for LICENSE.txt only comes up with 72 -- which is still a
    surprisingly high number, but not as amazing as 223.
    No, it really is 223.

    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | xargs rm
    $ cvs -q up modules -AdP
    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l
    223

    Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout?

    --
    Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
  • Derek Wright at Oct 8, 2006 at 8:39 am

    On Oct 8, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Dries Buytaert wrote:

    No, it really is 223.

    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | xargs rm
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    $ cvs -q up modules -AdP
    $ find modules -name INSTALL.txt | wc -l
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    223

    Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout?
    the subject (and content of this thread) is talking about "LICENSE.txt".
    your find commands keep talking about INSTALL.txt, the install
    instructions.

    hence the different numbers. ;)

    contrib authors: pay attention to the subject, not the body -- we
    want those INSTALL.txt files (sad it's not closer to 500), it's the
    LICENSE.txt files that should be removed.

    -derek

    p.s. coincidentally, i was *just* working on the packaging script for
    the new release system and was re-adding this feature just before i
    got the original email. ;)
  • Dries Buytaert at Oct 8, 2006 at 8:43 am

    On 08 Oct 2006, at 10:39, Derek Wright wrote:
    Maybe you are looking at a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout?
    the subject (and content of this thread) is talking about
    "LICENSE.txt".
    your find commands keep talking about INSTALL.txt, the install
    instructions.
    Drats. My wrong. That's what you get when you get up too early
    (http://buytaert.net/sunday-morning-6-33am). Thanks for the
    explanation, Derek.

    --
    Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
  • Khalid B at Oct 8, 2006 at 2:11 pm
    Hmm ...

    Seem Dries is not the only one suffering from the Sunday morning
    syndrome:

    http://drupal.org/cvs?commitB125
  • Gary Feldman at Oct 9, 2006 at 6:02 am

    Dries Buytaert wrote:
    Hello world,

    the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a LICENSE.txt
    when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS guidelines, it
    is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It just takes up disk
    space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please remove LICENSE.txt
    files from your contributed projects. Thanks.
    From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that
    the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source code
    downloaded directly from CVS.

    This wouldn't be an issue if each file had a copyright notice and a
    reference to the license, which is the best solution. In the absence of
    such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory
    seems penny wise and pound foolish. (The whole issue of copyright
    ownership is another can of worms. I suggest checking the FAQ on why
    FSF requires that copyright ownership be transferred to them for their
    projects, at
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright. Drupal
    should be doing the same.)

    Gary
  • Dries Buytaert at Oct 9, 2006 at 7:40 am

    On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
    the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a
    LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS
    guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It
    just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please
    remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks.
    From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is
    that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to
    source code downloaded directly from CVS.

    * There is a license file in the root of the contributions
    repository. (Yes, you can checkout modules on their own, or files
    on their own but that is not what 95% of the Drupal users do.)

    * Having to add a copyright notice to each file sucks in dynamically
    interpreted languages.

    --
    Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
  • Konstantin Käfer at Oct 9, 2006 at 7:43 am

    * Having to add a copyright notice to each file sucks in
    dynamically interpreted languages.
    What about adding an additional comment below the // $Id$ tag?
  • Thomas Barregren at Oct 9, 2006 at 9:55 am

    Dries Buytaert skrev:
    On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
    the package script at drupal.org automatically includes a
    LICENSE.txt when packaging your modules. As explained in the CVS
    guidelines, it is not necessary to add a LICENSE.txt to CVS. It
    just takes up disk space, and more importantly, bandwidth. Please
    remove LICENSE.txt files from your contributed projects. Thanks.
    From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is that
    the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to source
    code downloaded directly from CVS.

    * There is a license file in the root of the contributions
    repository. (Yes, you can checkout modules on their own, or files on
    their own but that is not what 95% of the Drupal users do.)
    Nevertheless, the regulation of GPL must be followed. Section 1 of GPL
    reads:

    1. You may copy and distribute ... provided that you
    conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
    copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
    notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
    warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
    License along with the Program.

    Since a checkout in fact means that the repository owner distributes
    code under GPL, the repository owner is responsible for

    1. conspicuously and appropriately publish on *each* copy an
    appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty,

    2. keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
    absence of any warranty, and

    3. give any other recipients ... a copy of this License.

    Thus, I figure that Gary is right.
    * Having to add a copyright notice to each file sucks in dynamically
    interpreted languages.
    I agree, but that doesn't change facts. According to GPL, as I read it,
    the copyright notice *must* be there for GPL to apply. Section 0 of GPL
    reads:

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
    a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
    under the terms of this General Public License. - - -

    Moreover, after the end of terms and conditions in the GPL, it is stated
    that "each file should have at least the 'copyright' line and a pointer
    to where the full notice is found." More on this can be found in the GPL
    FAQ.

    To summarize, I agree with Gary that each file must contain a copyright
    notice and a pointer to where the full notice as given at the end of GPL
    can be found. With this proviso, I think it is safe to remove
    LICENCE.txt from the modules. But, as Gary said, "in the absence of such
    notices, the omission of the license from the CVS package directory
    seems penny wise and pound foolish."

    Regards,
    Thomas

    Webbredakt?ren <http://www.webbredaktoren.se/>
  • Dries Buytaert at Oct 9, 2006 at 7:41 am

    On 09 Oct 2006, at 08:02, Gary Feldman wrote:
    From a legal perspective, this seems wrong. The implication is
    that the license only applies to the packaged bundles, and not to
    source code downloaded directly from CVS.
    This wouldn't be an issue if each file had a copyright notice and a
    reference to the license, which is the best solution. In the
    absence of such notices, the omission of the license from the CVS
    package directory seems penny wise and pound foolish. (The whole
    issue of copyright ownership is another can of worms. I suggest
    checking the FAQ on why FSF requires that copyright ownership be
    transferred to them for their projects, at http://www.gnu.org/
    licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAssignCopyright. Drupal should be doing
    the same.)
    Also, we had this discussion several times before. No need to
    discuss this over and over again. Check the archives. Thanks.

    --
    Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupdevelopment @
categoriesdrupal
postedOct 8, '06 at 6:45a
activeOct 9, '06 at 9:55a
posts11
users7
websitedrupal.org
irc#drupal

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase