Licensing of tests
Locked
 
|
A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that _tests_
authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default under CC0, rather than the current default which is MPL 2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788511 Ted Mielczarek writes: "Test files are unique in that they're not part of what we ship, but also can be valuable to outside parties (other browser developers, standards organizations). They're usually standalone and simple enough that nobody ought to care what the license is, so using public domain feels like a good fit. Having them default to public domain means that if someone wants to upstream them to a standards org, or share them with another browser vendor they don't need to worry about the licensing." Practically speaking, we would set an implementation date after which this policy would come into effect. Tests with an explicit licensing declaration would continue to be bound by that. We would encourage but not require people to use the CCO declaration. But many tests are and will continue to not have an explicit license. If someone wanted to know the license of an unlicensed test, they could look at its checkin date. If you object to this policy change, let me know. Follow-ups to mozilla.legal, please. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
FWIW, this is already the common practice for SpiderMonkey tests. Having it
be the explicit default would be very nice there, too, though. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote: > A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that _tests_ > authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default under CC0, > rather than the current default which is MPL 2: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788511 > > Ted Mielczarek writes: > "Test files are unique in that they're not part of what we ship, but > also can be valuable to outside parties (other browser developers, > standards organizations). They're usually standalone and simple enough > that nobody ought to care what the license is, so using public domain > feels like a good fit. Having them default to public domain means that > if someone wants to upstream them to a standards org, or share them with > another browser vendor they don't need to worry about the licensing." > > Practically speaking, we would set an implementation date after which > this policy would come into effect. Tests with an explicit licensing > declaration would continue to be bound by that. We would encourage but > not require people to use the CCO declaration. But many tests are and > will continue to not have an explicit license. If someone wanted to know > the license of an unlicensed test, they could look at its checkin date. > > If you object to this policy change, let me know. > > Follow-ups to mozilla.legal, please. > > Gerv > legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
This sounds awesome!
Out of curiosity, what would this mean for tests that are already declared to be in the public domain? <http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=public%20domain> On 2014-09-03, 9:11 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that _tests_ > authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default under CC0, > rather than the current default which is MPL 2: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788511 > > Ted Mielczarek writes: > "Test files are unique in that they're not part of what we ship, but > also can be valuable to outside parties (other browser developers, > standards organizations). They're usually standalone and simple enough > that nobody ought to care what the license is, so using public domain > feels like a good fit. Having them default to public domain means that > if someone wants to upstream them to a standards org, or share them with > another browser vendor they don't need to worry about the licensing." > > Practically speaking, we would set an implementation date after which > this policy would come into effect. Tests with an explicit licensing > declaration would continue to be bound by that. We would encourage but > not require people to use the CCO declaration. But many tests are and > will continue to not have an explicit license. If someone wanted to know > the license of an unlicensed test, they could look at its checkin date. > > If you object to this policy change, let me know. > > Follow-ups to mozilla.legal, please. > > Gerv > _______________________________________________ > dev-planning mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning > _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:21:37PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> This sounds awesome! > > Out of curiosity, what would this mean for tests that are already declared > to be in the public domain? > <http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=public%20domain> Considering the legal uncertainty[1] of "Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain", I'd say we should move them to CC0. Mike 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
On 9/3/2014 7:44 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:21:37PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> This sounds awesome! >> >> Out of curiosity, what would this mean for tests that are already declared >> to be in the public domain? >> <http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=public%20domain> > Considering the legal uncertainty[1] of "Any copyright is dedicated to the > Public Domain", I'd say we should move them to CC0. > AFAICT those are all trying to use CC0, so if the license header is inadequate then we should fix that. -Ted _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that _tests_ > authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default under CC0, In case it's not clear (I had to look it up) CC0 is the Creative Commons public domain dedication: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Sounds like a fine idea. Nick _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
Gervase Markham <[hidden email]>:
> A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that _tests_ > authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default under CC0, > rather than the current default which is MPL 2: It would be hugely beneficial to the project if we potentially could take any test and submit it to the W3C's web-platform-tests repository. If a test is in “the public domain” (CC0) my understanding is that it's fine for them to be picked up and relicensed under the 3-clause BSD/W3C license that w-p-t demands? http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Hi Gerv, On 09/03/2014 03:11 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > A case has been made for changing our licensing policy such that > _tests_ authored by the Mozilla community are licensed by default > under CC0, rather than the current default which is MPL 2: > Thanks for following up on this; I strongly support this proposal. Ms2ger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCA0uAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n2fSkH/AztXMRpKmENB50C2TUORH5+ Nd/JponJZ3n3AiODT33cPiQzIkthSEpVCXzhTi7FdNXhK+G1dPKshsyYGZdV+cZl ssiiW3bQ3FeWS+uV+vbYzV9t1NxtWL/wpMI5j2i39PNn2KASZbjiuE1q8JMOTX/Z Af4eEcYjb+eSNH6sUu0CdXECvwQRAdfVUN1SunS7+PcNIpi/aZqBNVulP9FSg5SV xgfaa0o9HlSFUDyHFiIF+MxPmmbQ96zTqBVEEL9kwkAHOWHpCzGwjuBXIhbIZJvn QSQIYx85r9Ei/9tTTA1Xe+rUpAKZPo4SCWO0UZUwxO08Mqn13OJ6Wda+M/72ghs= =XaPr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas Tolfsen
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Andreas Tolfsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It would be hugely beneficial to the project if we potentially could > take any test and submit it to the W3C's web-platform-tests repository. Yes that works. It would be even better if W3C did not change the license if it was more liberal than theirs so changes can be imported back without affecting the license. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On 03/09/14 23:21, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what would this mean for tests that are already > declared to be in the public domain? > <http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=public%20domain> Nothing. They would continue to be so. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ehsan Akhgari
On 04/09/14 00:44, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Considering the legal uncertainty[1] of "Any copyright is dedicated to the > Public Domain", I'd say we should move them to CC0. > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain If you look at the second line of each of those files, you'll see that this is precisely what they are. That's the standard Mozilla CC0 header: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/headers/ /* Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain. * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ */ Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
On 2014-09-04, 4:49 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 04/09/14 00:44, Mike Hommey wrote: >> Considering the legal uncertainty[1] of "Any copyright is dedicated to the >> Public Domain", I'd say we should move them to CC0. >> >> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain > > If you look at the second line of each of those files, you'll see that > this is precisely what they are. That's the standard Mozilla CC0 header: > http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/headers/ > > /* Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain. > * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ */ Ah, indeed, you are right. I was confused because the first result from grep (aclocal.m4) doesn't have that second line, but based on a cursory look, that file and its copy in js/src seem to be the only ones! Cheers, Ehsan _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ted Mielczarek writes: > "Test files are unique in that they're not part of what we ship, but > also can be valuable to outside parties (other browser developers, > standards organizations). They're usually standalone and simple enough > that nobody ought to care what the license is, so using public domain > feels like a good fit. Having them default to public domain means that > if someone wants to upstream them to a standards org, or share them with > another browser vendor they don't need to worry about the licensing." I support this reasoning and support a policy that puts tests we write under CC0. I think we should still permit importing tests that are more restrictively licensed from elsewhere and allow people who write tests as work-for-hire for the Mozilla Group to contribute to more restrictively licensed upstream test repos under the licenses of those repos. (Maybe the previous sentence is obvious, but I think it's worth saying explicitly.) > Practically speaking, we would set an implementation date after which > this policy would come into effect. Tests with an explicit licensing > declaration would continue to be bound by that. We would encourage but > not require people to use the CCO declaration. But many tests are and > will continue to not have an explicit license. If someone wanted to know > the license of an unlicensed test, they could look at its checkin date. I think it would make sense for tests that have been written as work-for-hire to the Mozilla Group or have otherwise had their copyright transferred to the Mozilla Foundation prior to the policy change date to be relicensed by the Mozilla Foundation under CC0. That way, if a test predated the policy change but the logs showed it was authored by an Mozilla employee or contractor, you could treat it as CC0 without further bureaucracy. -- Henri Sivonen [hidden email] https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On 05/09/14 10:01, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I support this reasoning and support a policy that puts tests we write > under CC0. I think we should still permit importing tests that are > more restrictively licensed from elsewhere As long as they meet our license policies, sure. (For code which is not shipped, the official policy is simply "must be under an OSI license", and the unofficial policy is also "should not cause us licensing or administrative hassle".) > and allow people who write > tests as work-for-hire for the Mozilla Group to contribute to more > restrictively licensed upstream test repos under the licenses of those > repos. Again, if open source, no problem; if not, we'd have to consider on a case-by-case basis. We'd be more likely to establish an independent test suite. > I think it would make sense for tests that have been written as > work-for-hire to the Mozilla Group or have otherwise had their > copyright transferred to the Mozilla Foundation prior to the policy > change date to be relicensed by the Mozilla Foundation under CC0. That > way, if a test predated the policy change but the logs showed it was > authored by an Mozilla employee or contractor, you could treat it as > CC0 without further bureaucracy. I'm happy to do that if all it means is stating it as a policy, but I don't have time to go and do the research and change license headers. We can simply say: "if you do the research on a file with no header and find it qualifies, you can use it under CC0. If you can't be bothered, you must assume it's MPL2." Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
|
|
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 05/09/14 10:01, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> I support this reasoning and support a policy that puts tests we write >> under CC0. I think we should still permit importing tests that are >> more restrictively licensed from elsewhere > > As long as they meet our license policies, sure. (For code which is not > shipped, the official policy is simply "must be under an OSI license", > and the unofficial policy is also "should not cause us licensing or > administrative hassle".) Sounds good. >> and allow people who write >> tests as work-for-hire for the Mozilla Group to contribute to more >> restrictively licensed upstream test repos under the licenses of those >> repos. > > Again, if open source, no problem; if not, we'd have to consider on a > case-by-case basis. We'd be more likely to establish an independent test > suite. The suites I immediately had in mind are the htm5lib test suite (MIT so OSI approved) and various W3C test suites, which are dual licensed under OSI-approved 3-clause BSD and non-OSI-approved W3C Test Suite License. Since CC0 and permissive licenses, including BSD, permit proprietary forks, I don't see explicitly allowing the W3C to license the tests also under the W3C Test Suite License is worse than allowing them to do so less explicitly via CC0 or BSD. >> I think it would make sense for tests that have been written as >> work-for-hire to the Mozilla Group or have otherwise had their >> copyright transferred to the Mozilla Foundation prior to the policy >> change date to be relicensed by the Mozilla Foundation under CC0. That >> way, if a test predated the policy change but the logs showed it was >> authored by an Mozilla employee or contractor, you could treat it as >> CC0 without further bureaucracy. > > I'm happy to do that if all it means is stating it as a policy, but I > don't have time to go and do the research and change license headers. I didn't mean to suggest anyone would do the research proactively. > We can simply say: "if you do the research on a file with no header and > find it qualifies, you can use it under CC0. If you can't be bothered, > you must assume it's MPL2." This is what I meant. -- Henri Sivonen [hidden email] https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal |
«
Return to Mozilla - License
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |