6 ms·

The link I provided does explain this, under the section “MIT and BSD don’t expect more contributors”, which reads in part: “MIT and BSD terms include a space

The link I provided does explain this, under the section “MIT and BSD don’t expect more contributors”, which reads in part: “MIT and BSD terms include a space for a single copyright notice, because they were written for releases from academic institutions that own all the copyrights in their employees’ work. What about other contributors to the project? They hold copyright in their contributions.” Apache 2.0 DOES address this issue in a complicated way, through the supplementary use of Contributor License Agreements. Other non-Apache projects like Fossil also require you to physically sign a CLA before contributing code to the project. Blue Oak handles this in a more straightforward way, by explicitly saying that, as a condition of the license, every contributor in turn allows any use of their code that would otherwise infringe their copyright or patent claims. Who is a contributor? Anyone who contributes code. No CLA needed.

kemitchell 8y ago
I don't think contributing back on Blue Oak terms is a condition of the Blue Oak Model License, in the sense of https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#contributions https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#contributions. Rather, the Blue Oak Model clearly expresses the expectation that all contributors will do so. Expressing that expectation in writing can help make a legal case that submitting a contribution for inclusion in the public project implies a license under the same terms. But that's a distant second best to creating a written, public record of each contributor's affirmative intent to license their work under Blue Oak Terms. That evidence doesn't have to look like a "formal" CLA. It could be as simple as a public comment on the PR: > I license my contributions under Blue Oak Model 1.0.0. It could be as simple as having contributors add their names to a THANKS or AUTHORS or CREDITS file in the repo, under a note that everyone licenses BlueOak-1.0.0, with Git commit data showing each contributor added their own name.
foldr 8y ago
I don't know what is meant by "space" here. It's a text file. There's nothing to stop someone listing multiple copyright holders in an MIT license. In general, having a long list of copyright holders is bad, because it makes it almost impossible in practice to verify that all of the copyright holders actually consent to release their code under the relevant license.
- velcrovan 8y ago
  He’s not implying that the space in the file is somehow limited. He’s pointing towards the same problem you are guesturing at in your second paragraph: that “listing” copyright holders really only makes sense when there is only one of them. Any more than that and you raise the legal question: who exactly has copyright on which parts? When there is more than one copyright holder, you absolutely need language to address that in the license. MIT license has no such language. Apache 2.0 addresses it by requiring CLAs, per-file copyright and attribution notices, etc. Blue Oak addresses it by using terms that start with "Each contributor".
  - foldr 8y ago
    "Each contributor" is meaningless unless you have a list of contributors. If you have a list of contributors, you may as well put it in the license.
    - velcrovan 8y ago
      No, it's not meaningless. It refers to everyone who has contributed. According to the Blue Oak license, everyone who has contributed licenses their contribution according to the terms of that license. There’s no need to identify them separately, not for licensing purposes anyway. If their code is in there, it’s covered by the license.
      - foldr 8y ago
        No, not unless you have a record that they agreed to contribute their code under that license. There's no magic wording in a license file that can make it possible to get by without keeping a proper record of contributors.
        velcrovan 8y ago
        Yes there is such magic wording. You can't use the software without agreeing to the license. It is obviously the case that anyone who contributes is a user of the software. Thus all contributors are bound by the license terms whether or not their names are added to any list. If any contributor were to assert a violation of their copyright, they would themselves be in violation of the license.

kemitchell 8y ago

I don't think contributing back on Blue Oak terms is a condition of the Blue Oak Model License, in the sense of https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#contributions https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#contributions. Rather, the Blue Oak Model clearly expresses the expectation that all contributors will do so. Expressing that expectation in writing can help make a legal case that submitting a contribution for inclusion in the public project implies a license under the same terms. But that's a distant second best to creating a written, public record of each contributor's affirmative intent to license their work under Blue Oak Terms. That evidence doesn't have to look like a "formal" CLA. It could be as simple as a public comment on the PR: > I license my contributions under Blue Oak Model 1.0.0. It could be as simple as having contributors add their names to a THANKS or AUTHORS or CREDITS file in the repo, under a note that everyone licenses BlueOak-1.0.0, with Git commit data showing each contributor added their own name.

foldr 8y ago

I don't know what is meant by "space" here. It's a text file. There's nothing to stop someone listing multiple copyright holders in an MIT license. In general, having a long list of copyright holders is bad, because it makes it almost impossible in practice to verify that all of the copyright holders actually consent to release their code under the relevant license.

velcrovan 8y ago
He’s not implying that the space in the file is somehow limited. He’s pointing towards the same problem you are guesturing at in your second paragraph: that “listing” copyright holders really only makes sense when there is only one of them. Any more than that and you raise the legal question: who exactly has copyright on which parts? When there is more than one copyright holder, you absolutely need language to address that in the license. MIT license has no such language. Apache 2.0 addresses it by requiring CLAs, per-file copyright and attribution notices, etc. Blue Oak addresses it by using terms that start with "Each contributor".
- foldr 8y ago
  "Each contributor" is meaningless unless you have a list of contributors. If you have a list of contributors, you may as well put it in the license.
  - velcrovan 8y ago
    No, it's not meaningless. It refers to everyone who has contributed. According to the Blue Oak license, everyone who has contributed licenses their contribution according to the terms of that license. There’s no need to identify them separately, not for licensing purposes anyway. If their code is in there, it’s covered by the license.
    - foldr 8y ago
      No, not unless you have a record that they agreed to contribute their code under that license. There's no magic wording in a license file that can make it possible to get by without keeping a proper record of contributors.
      - velcrovan 8y ago
        Yes there is such magic wording. You can't use the software without agreeing to the license. It is obviously the case that anyone who contributes is a user of the software. Thus all contributors are bound by the license terms whether or not their names are added to any list. If any contributor were to assert a violation of their copyright, they would themselves be in violation of the license.