Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the |COPYING|/|LICENSE| file in the root of the repository, think that |.license| files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way."
I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing.
However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that
"Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof."
Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."
Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice".
If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best,
Carsten
[1]: https://reuse.software/faq/#tradition
[2]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/
[3]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7736/is-question-25-from-mpl-...
Hi Carsten,
Furthermore, Mozilla recommends to use the appropriate header text wherever possible https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/headers/%C2%A0and mention it in their FAQ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/#apply
I understand your concern and honestly I don't know the right answer or oversee all risks of not using the header. Lawyers might have a interesting argument on this ;) Personally I'm not so concerned as there remain plenty of hints about the license in the file. There are even projects that only add a LICENSE file in the project root without adding anything on the file.
Still, adding Exhibit A header to each file is probably the safer choice. Reuse-tool allows you to use template for specific needs like if you want to go that route https://reuse.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage.html#templates
Maybe others can provide more details and insights.
Best, Nico
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
1. Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition. 2. You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified. 3. Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ? 4. I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the COPYING/LICENSE file in the root of the repository, think that .license files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way." I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing. However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that "Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof." Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/." Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice". If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best, Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Hi Luis and Nico
Thanks for your responses!
My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included.
So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE.
Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A.
... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers.
In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me.
I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the |COPYING|/|LICENSE| file in the root of the repository, think that |.license| files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way."
I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing.
However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that
"Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof."
Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."
Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice".
If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best,
Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Just a quick update on this:
At work, our group decided to handle this in our own projects by including a file named MPL2.0-NOTICE.txt in the .reuse/ folder containing this text:
# This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public # License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this # file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I believe that should conform explicitly to the license's recommendation to "include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice" and still avoid having it as boilerplate in each and every file.
Best Carsten
On 7/21/23 14:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
Hi Luis and Nico
Thanks for your responses!
My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included.
So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE.
Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A.
... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers.
In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me.
I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the |COPYING|/|LICENSE| file in the root of the repository, think that |.license| files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way."
I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing.
However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that
"Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof."
Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."
Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice".
If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best,
Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
And a quick update on my end: I’m discussing an addition to the MPL FAQ. Thanks for raising the issue - it will be good to get it clarified.
-- Co-Founder and General Counsel, Tidelift
My core work communication hours are typically 8-6, Pacific. Unless I specify that it is urgent, please respond at a time that works for you. On Aug 9, 2023 at 5:59 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Just a quick update on this: At work, our group decided to handle this in our own projects by including a file named MPL2.0-NOTICE.txt in the .reuse/ folder containing this text: # This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public # License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this # file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I believe that should conform explicitly to the license's recommendation to "include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice" and still avoid having it as boilerplate in each and every file.
Best Carsten
On 7/21/23 14:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
Hi Luis and Nico Thanks for your responses! My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included. So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE. Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A. ... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers. In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me. I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the COPYING/LICENSE file in the root of the repository, think that .license files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way." I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing. However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that "Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof." Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/." Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice". If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best, Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog: https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé: https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog: https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé: https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/ _______________________________________________ REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Hi Luis
Thanks a lot!
Please let us know if and when the FAQ gets updated with a clarification.
Best, Carsten
On 8/9/23 19:14, Luis Villa wrote:
And a quick update on my end: I’m discussing an addition to the MPL FAQ. Thanks for raising the issue - it will be good to get it clarified.
/--// / /Co-Founder and General Counsel, Tidelift/ / / My core work communication hours are typically 8-6, Pacific. Unless I specify that it is urgent, please respond at a time that works for you. On Aug 9, 2023 at 5:59 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Just a quick update on this:
At work, our group decided to handle this in our own projects by including a file named MPL2.0-NOTICE.txt in the .reuse/ folder containing this text:
# This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public # License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this # file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I believe that should conform explicitly to the license's recommendation to "include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice" and still avoid having it as boilerplate in each and every file.
Best Carsten
On 7/21/23 14:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
Hi Luis and Nico
Thanks for your responses!
My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included.
So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE.
Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A.
... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers.
In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me.
I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the |COPYING|/|LICENSE| file in the root of the repository, think that |.license| files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way."
I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing.
However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that
"Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof."
Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."
Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice".
If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best,
Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/ _______________________________________________ REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Taken a while, but updated!
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ On Aug 18, 2023 at 2:47 AM -0600, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi Luis Thanks a lot! Please let us know if and when the FAQ gets updated with a clarification.
Best, Carsten
On 8/9/23 19:14, Luis Villa wrote:
And a quick update on my end: I’m discussing an addition to the MPL FAQ. Thanks for raising the issue - it will be good to get it clarified.
-- Co-Founder and General Counsel, Tidelift
My core work communication hours are typically 8-6, Pacific. Unless I specify that it is urgent, please respond at a time that works for you. On Aug 9, 2023 at 5:59 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Just a quick update on this: At work, our group decided to handle this in our own projects by including a file named MPL2.0-NOTICE.txt in the .reuse/ folder containing this text: # This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public # License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this # file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I believe that should conform explicitly to the license's recommendation to "include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice" and still avoid having it as boilerplate in each and every file.
Best Carsten
On 7/21/23 14:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
Hi Luis and Nico Thanks for your responses! My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included. So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE. Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A. ... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers. In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me. I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi all
The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal blurbs at the tops of files, miss the COPYING/LICENSE file in the root of the repository, think that .license files clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way." I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE automation is an excellent thing. However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] states that "Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source Code Form, in each case including portions thereof." Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/." Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice". If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3]
The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt".
Best, Carsten
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog: https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé: https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog: https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé: https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/ _______________________________________________ REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog: https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé: https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
Thanks, Luis, that's awesome! :-) Just the kind of wording was hoping for.
Best Carsten
On 2/7/24 07:28, Luis Villa wrote:
Taken a while, but updated!
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ On Aug 18, 2023 at 2:47 AM -0600, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Hi Luis
Thanks a lot!
Please let us know if and when the FAQ gets updated with a clarification.
Best, Carsten
On 8/9/23 19:14, Luis Villa wrote:
And a quick update on my end: I’m discussing an addition to the MPL FAQ. Thanks for raising the issue - it will be good to get it clarified.
/--// / /Co-Founder and General Counsel, Tidelift/ / / My core work communication hours are typically 8-6, Pacific. Unless I specify that it is urgent, please respond at a time that works for you. On Aug 9, 2023 at 5:59 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote:
Just a quick update on this:
At work, our group decided to handle this in our own projects by including a file named MPL2.0-NOTICE.txt in the .reuse/ folder containing this text:
# This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public # License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this # file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I believe that should conform explicitly to the license's recommendation to "include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice" and still avoid having it as boilerplate in each and every file.
Best Carsten
On 7/21/23 14:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
Hi Luis and Nico
Thanks for your responses!
My own take is that since section 1.4 of the MPL is so clear-cut in distinguishing between files that have exhibit A attached and those who don't, it would follow that if exhibit A is not present *anywhere at all* (excluding the license proper, where it's only specified) in a repo with an MPL 2.0 license file, logically *no* files are included.
So while I'd appreciate more clarity in the MPL FAQ, this should probably be fixed in REUSE.
Suppose it was specified that for MPL 2.0-licensed files to be REUSE compliant then there MUST be a text file in the .reuse folder which SHOULD be called (e.g.) "mpl2_0_notice.txt" and MUST contain the MPL's exhibit A.
... UNLESS all covered files explicitly include the exhibit in the headers.
In that case, the exhibit is clearly placed in a place where one would expect it, and the license would be properly applied.
If, on the other hand, the MPL 2.0 FAQ was to specify unambiguously that just having a license file is enough, that is more or less equivalent to removing section 1.4 from the license altogether. Or at least so it seems to me.
I guess you, Luis, as a maintainer would know much better than me what the intention with that section is? I suppose it's there for a good reason.
Best Carsten
On 7/20/23 22:50, Luis (Tidelift) wrote:
[Writing from luis@tidelift.com since that is what is subscribed to this mailing list, but speaking here in my personal, volunteer role as a maintainer of the MPL — I’d write from luis@lu.is if that were subscribed!]
Hrm. Certainly not the intent of the license drafters (hi!) to prohibit use of metadata, though sadly it was not as high a consideration as it could have been during drafting.
Couple of notes and questions.
- Source Code Form is defined as the “preferred form for modification”, rather than something like a “file”, because we knew that some “preferred form”s would not be able to contain the full header for a variety of technical reasons. REUSE-style usage would seem to fit in both the spirit and text of that definition.
- You raise an interesting point about the FAQ’s somewhat confusing language on whether “LICENSE” by itself is sufficient; I will see if I can get that clarified.
- Have any other license FAQs recommended use of REUSE? If so, pointers so I can see if it would be appropriate to do something similar in the MPL FAQ?
- I assume it would be disfavored for `reuse download MPL-2.0` to pull some supplementary text to clarify the situation?
Thanks- Luis On Jul 20, 2023 at 4:44 AM -0700, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, wrote: > > > Hi all > > > The REUSE FAQ states that some people "miss the long legal > blurbs at the tops of files, miss the |COPYING|/|LICENSE| file > in the root of the repository, think that |.license| files > clutter the directory, or find it very strange that even > insignificant non-code files get licensing headers. The > different-ness of REUSE can seem peculiar in that way." > > I definitely don't miss those blurbs. In that way, REUSE > automation is an excellent thing. > > However, I wonder if this might cause people to fail to apply > the MPL 2.0 license. Section 1.4 of the MPL 2.0 license[2] > states that > > "Covered Software" "means Source Code Form to which the initial > Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A, the Executable > Form of such Source Code Form, and Modifications of such Source > Code Form, in each case including portions thereof." > > Exhibit A is this statement: "This Source Code Form is subject > to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of > the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one > at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/." > > Normally, this is interpreted as meaning that this statement > should be included in headers, however "if it is not possible or > desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may > include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a > relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look > for such a notice". > > If you attach the SPDX headers indicating "MPL 2.0", however, > this notice appears exactly NOWHERE in the repository except in > the license file itself, where it only serves the purpose of > specifying the requirement and thus cannot be said to be > attached to each file in the repository. There's a question on > StackExchange discussing a similar issue.[3] > > > The question is if this particular requirement in MPL 2.0, that > actively *demands* the inclusion of a specific text in order to > apply, means that REUSE's current standard check is insufficient > for the MPL and that the MPL Exhibit A text should be included > somewhere? (Like, in a file called ".reuse/MPL2.0-Exhibit-A.txt". > > > Best, > > Carsten > > > [1]: https://reuse.software/faq/#tradition > > [2]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ > > [3]: > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7736/is-question-25-from-mpl-... > > _______________________________________________ > REUSE mailing list > REUSE@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/
REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/ _______________________________________________ REUSE mailing list REUSE@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/reuse
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-- Free software blog:https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
Blog om candomblé:https://www.modspil.dk/wordpress/