Consider changing license display requirement

[bambinella]

The standard library license currently requires all derived works to carry the license of the library. This is overreaching in comparison to what other comparable compilers and source-to-source transpilers require.

I suggest moving to a license comparable to the ones used by other transpilers like Haxe and Nim, qualified with an intent statement on the page that links to the license. These licenses only require display of the license text if the derived work includes substantial portions of the original work.

Haxe:

https://haxe.org/foundation/open-source.html

Linked page states «Since Haxe 3, the Haxe Standard Library has been licensed under a MIT style license, which does not require the notices to be reproduced anywhere outside of the actual library code.» and the license has the following clause «The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.»

Current Whiley standard library license states:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Proposed change

I propose that the two clauses is replaced with a single clause that explicitly allows transpiled and compiled code to omit the license text if the resulting work does not intend to replicate substantial parts of the functionality of the standard library or something along those lines.

An alternative formulation, which I think in general is more clear in contracts/licenses, is to first state a wide requirement, then add an exception clause weakening the requirements.

I am not confident that the Haxe license is clear enough to cover the stated intent «does not require the notices to be reproduced anywhere outside of the actual library code». Although in the case of Haxe, the intent is prominently displayed and will probably be used in a legal interpretation of the license in a court of law.

Maybe «The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all full copies or substantial portions of the Software.» is sufficient, but I am not a legal expert.

Maybe it would be better if the intent is made more explicit in the license. The license should work in all jurisdictions. Current license formulations in open source projects are dominated by US legalese. I believe some European countries have stronger copyright protection for authors than the US, and these courts might side with the author of the original work by default in a dispute, unless there is an explicit exception clause in the license.

[DavePearce]

Great discussion. Just to add some other data points:

• D uses Boost. See here
• Go uses MIT. See here

(I'll try and compile a few more here)

NOTE: As far as I'm aware, any code generated by transpiling would be considered as "binary" for the purposes of licensing. The source code in the license refers to the original (whiley) source code of the library. It would be interesting to find out whether there are any precedents there. I'd imagine the JavaScript community would be one place to look.

[DavePearce]

(oops pressed the wrong button --- sorry)

[bambinella]

As far as I'm aware, any code generated by transpiling would be considered as "binary" for the purposes of licensing. The source code in the license refers to the original (whiley) source code of the library.

Maybe in the USA, although it seems odd to me, but I think the license would be interpreted in the context of the originating country (New Zealand) or in the context of the country which it is used (in my case Norway). So I think one actually have to define it explicitly and that US precedent is kinda irrelevant in our jurisdictions (at least if the US precedent is in conflict with local principles)…

But if the intent is stated clearly then the court can use that to sort out what was meant across jurisdictions and varying terminology. I think...

[bambinella]

My understanding is that US originating licenses tend to be over-reaching in favour of the copyright holder because of the sue-happy climate they have.