Repository navigation
Proposal: A standard Copyright and License for all *new* Foundation projects #217
Description
@nodejs/tsc
There have been a number of discussions around copyright headers and formats. I would like to propose that the TSC formally ask the Node.js Foundation to approve and enforce a standard copyright and license statement for all Node.js Foundation projects. This would apply to all new projects either created within the Node.js Foundation or entering into the Foundation. For the latter, this would mean that an explicit agreement to change the copyright statement and license for the incoming project would be a required step of the onboarding process. For existing Node.js Foundation projects, this would mean updating existing copyright statements and license text to conform to the new standard.
The goal is to ensure that there is as much consistency and few issues as possible when it comes to copyright and license.
The copyright/license statement would consist of a short form (to appear at the top of source files) and a long form (to appear within the LICENSE.md file in all project repositories:
Short form:
Copyright Node.js Foundation and Node.js Contributors.
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
(Note that this is slightly different text than what is currently proposed in nodejs/node#10599)
Long form:
Copyright Node.js Foundation and Node.js Contributors.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE SOFTWARE.
In addition to the standard MIT license text above, I would propose that the Board further amend the license with an explicit patent grant using language adopted from the Apache v2.0 license:
Each Contributor hereby grants to any person a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to
make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where
such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are
necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. Should any person institute
patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to that person
under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Activity
richardlau commentedon Feb 24, 2017
But if the license is amended then
is not strictly accurate.
jasnell commentedon Feb 24, 2017
@richardlau ... yep, we'll have to evaluate whether or not a new identifier would need to be created. That's something we can check on. That said, the MIT license does not rule out the addition of an explicit patent license so identifying it as
MITwould still be generally accurate.mhdawson commentedon Feb 27, 2017
Are there specific things that we don't want from the Apache v2.0 license ? Otherwise using a standard license would probably be preferable. I'm guess there are but I think listing those in this issue would help from the discussion of this suggestion.
MylesBorins commentedon Sep 14, 2017
Is this something that still needs to be brought up?
jasnell commentedon Sep 14, 2017
No, I'm withdrawing this proposal