• Saaa (15/15) Mar 27 2008 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their
• Unknown W. Brackets (11/34) Mar 27 2008 Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help (like
• Saaa (9/41) Mar 27 2008 But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of license...
• Walter Bright (4/17) Mar 27 2008 I agree that can be onerous. I'd ask the copyright holder:
• Mike Parker (8/29) Mar 27 2008 In this particular case, this is the modified BSD license used by many
• Christopher Wright (10/23) Mar 27 2008 ./myprogram --license
• Mike Parker (9/31) Mar 27 2008 Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions...
• Mike Parker (2/33) Mar 27 2008 /practice/ = it is common practice
• Saaa (6/16) Mar 27 2008 Thanks for your reply.
• Mike Parker (9/27) Mar 27 2008 One way is to prepend the library name to its specific license file,
• Unknown W. Brackets (5/36) Mar 27 2008 (I was just answering what it meant for a binary to reproduce a

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
copyright notice:

...
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.
...

What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?

What should be written in the documentation?
Something like:
readme.txt [
.. documentation ..

??

< insert copyright from X> ]

and what if there is no documentation? 

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help (like 
--version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

And, yes, you want the notice and copyright in the documentation, and 
many times even in the source files.  If there's no documentation 
provided with the program, consider including a "license.txt" - or as 
above, spitting out such output with a switch or menu option.

My couple cents, anyway... this is a pretty standard clause and for the 
authors' interpretations (which are what matter most really) you should 
ask them directly.

-[Unknown]


Saaa wrote:
 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
 copyright notice:
 
 ...
 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.
 ...
 
 What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?
 
 What should be written in the documentation?
 Something like:
 readme.txt [
 .. documentation ..
 
 ??
 
 < insert copyright from X> ]
 
 and what if there is no documentation? 
 
 

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

 Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help 
 (like --version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of licenses.
spitting out multiple notices is possible althought it would be kind of 
long.
Take Derelict; If you spit out the notice for every sourcefile you used that
would end up being hundreds of lines of notice.

And how do you make clear that the license isn't the license of your 
program?
Because as I understand it: the program using the sourcecode doesn't need
to have the same license (otherwise commercial use wouldn't be possible)


 And, yes, you want the notice and copyright in the documentation, and many 
 times even in the source files.  If there's no documentation provided with 
 the program, consider including a "license.txt" - or as above, spitting 
 out such output with a switch or menu option.

 My couple cents, anyway... this is a pretty standard clause and for the 
 authors' interpretations (which are what matter most really) you should 
 ask them directly.

 -[Unknown]


 Saaa wrote:
 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
 copyright notice:

 ...
 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.
 ...

 What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?

 What should be written in the documentation?
 Something like:
 readme.txt [
 .. documentation ..

 ??

 < insert copyright from X> ]

 and what if there is no documentation? 

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Saaa wrote:
 Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help 
 (like --version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

 
 But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of licenses.
 spitting out multiple notices is possible althought it would be kind of 
 long.
 Take Derelict; If you spit out the notice for every sourcefile you used that
 would end up being hundreds of lines of notice.
 
 And how do you make clear that the license isn't the license of your 
 program?
 Because as I understand it: the program using the sourcecode doesn't need
 to have the same license (otherwise commercial use wouldn't be possible)

I agree that can be onerous. I'd ask the copyright holder:

"exactly what string do you want me to output, and under what 
circumstances should it be output?"

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Saaa wrote:
 Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help 
 (like --version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

 But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of 
 licenses.
 spitting out multiple notices is possible althought it would be kind 
 of long.
 Take Derelict; If you spit out the notice for every sourcefile you 
 used that
 would end up being hundreds of lines of notice.

 And how do you make clear that the license isn't the license of your 
 program?
 Because as I understand it: the program using the sourcecode doesn't need
 to have the same license (otherwise commercial use wouldn't be possible)

 
 I agree that can be onerous. I'd ask the copyright holder:
 
 "exactly what string do you want me to output, and under what 
 circumstances should it be output?"

In this particular case, this is the modified BSD license used by many 
open source projects. There's no need to print out any strings, nor to 
contact the copyright holder. The BSD is the BSD and isn't going to 
change on the whim of a single developer unless he modifies it and 
rebrands it as a new license entirely.

That's why I chose the modified BSD for Derelict. It's not viral, is in 
widespread use and is generally well understood.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Saaa wrote:
 Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help 
 (like --version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

 
 But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of licenses.
 spitting out multiple notices is possible althought it would be kind of 
 long.
 Take Derelict; If you spit out the notice for every sourcefile you used that
 would end up being hundreds of lines of notice.
 
 And how do you make clear that the license isn't the license of your 
 program?
 Because as I understand it: the program using the sourcecode doesn't need
 to have the same license (otherwise commercial use wouldn't be possible)

./myprogram --license
Myprogram is distributed under the GNU GPL version 2:
<gpl reproduced here>

It depends on Derelict, parts of which may be included in this binary, 
which is distributed under the following license:
<derelict license here>

It also depends on Tango, parts of which may be included in this binary, 
which is distributed under the following license:
<tango license here>

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Saaa wrote:
 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
 copyright notice:
 
 ...
 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.
 ...
 
 What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?
 
 What should be written in the documentation?
 Something like:
 readme.txt [
 .. documentation ..
 
 ??
 
 < insert copyright from X> ]
 
 and what if there is no documentation? 
 

Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions 
and the disclaimer should all be included in the documentation or other 
materials. You don't need to output a string, as suggested in another 
post, nor do you need to reproduce the copyright for every file used. 
With both source and binary distributions practice to include a 
license.txt that contains the required text, i.e. one file containing 
the complete header found at the top of each source file. That meets the 
requirements fine.

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Mike Parker wrote:
 Saaa wrote:
 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
 copyright notice:

 ...
 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.
 ...

 What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?

 What should be written in the documentation?
 Something like:
 readme.txt [
 .. documentation ..

 ??

 < insert copyright from X> ]

 and what if there is no documentation?

 
 Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions 
 and the disclaimer should all be included in the documentation or other 
 materials. You don't need to output a string, as suggested in another 
 post, nor do you need to reproduce the copyright for every file used. 
 With both source and binary distributions practice to include a 
 license.txt that contains the required text, i.e. one file containing 
 the complete header found at the top of each source file. That meets the 
 requirements fine.

/practice/ = it is common practice

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

 Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions 
 and the disclaimer should all be included in the documentation or other 
 materials. You don't need to output a string, as suggested in another 
 post, nor do you need to reproduce the copyright for every file used. 
 With both source and binary distributions practice to include a 
 license.txt that contains the required text, i.e. one file containing the 
 complete header found at the top of each source file. That meets the 
 requirements fine.

 /practice/ = it is common practice

Thanks for your reply.
If I include a license.txt people might expect that license to apply to my 
program.
What is common practice to distinguish between licenses from used sources 
and
the license of the compiled program? 

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Saaa wrote:
 Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions 
 and the disclaimer should all be included in the documentation or other 
 materials. You don't need to output a string, as suggested in another 
 post, nor do you need to reproduce the copyright for every file used. 
 With both source and binary distributions practice to include a 
 license.txt that contains the required text, i.e. one file containing the 
 complete header found at the top of each source file. That meets the 
 requirements fine.

 /practice/ = it is common practice

 
 Thanks for your reply.
 If I include a license.txt people might expect that license to apply to my 
 program.
 What is common practice to distinguish between licenses from used sources 
 and
 the license of the compiled program? 
 
 

One way is to prepend the library name to its specific license file, 
such as sdl_license.txt and derelict_license.txt.

BTW, I should note that I personally don't care if you include a license 
file for Derelict or not. I should, since I did choose the BSD and not 
something like public domain or the academic license, but I really 
don't. You /do/ need to make sure that you include any license 
information for libraries that Derelict binds to if you are distributing 
the shared libraries along with your app, such as the LGPL for SDL.

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

(I was just answering what it meant for a binary to reproduce a 
copyright notice, and suggesting it was one possible solution to 
omitting documentation... not saying it was required by this license.)

-[Unknown]


Mike Parker wrote:
 Saaa wrote:
 A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
 copyright notice:

 ...
 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.
 ...

 What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?

 What should be written in the documentation?
 Something like:
 readme.txt [
 .. documentation ..

 ??

 < insert copyright from X> ]

 and what if there is no documentation?

 
 Read that clause carefully. The copyright notice, the list of conditions 
 and the disclaimer should all be included in the documentation or other 
 materials. You don't need to output a string, as suggested in another 
 post, nor do you need to reproduce the copyright for every file used. 
 With both source and binary distributions practice to include a 
 license.txt that contains the required text, i.e. one file containing 
 the complete header found at the top of each source file. That meets the 
 requirements fine.