[macports-ports] 01/17: cargo PG: modify comments

[Joshua Root]

On 2018-4-28 13:04 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> According to WikiPedia, "All rights reserved" has no effect in any legal jurisdiction:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved
> 
> Unless anyone knows otherwise, we may as well remove it everywhere.

It's not even true since we explicitly grant rights to others in the
license.

>> @@ -11,7 +12,7 @@
>>  # 2. 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.
>> -# 3. Neither the name of Apple Computer, Inc. nor the names of its
>> +# 3. Neither the name of The MacPorts Project nor the names of its
>>  #    contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
>>  #    this software without specific prior written permission.
> 
> The attribution to Apple in the license text appears in many files, not just this one. This file certainly didn't originate from Apple, but some MacPorts source files did, and I don't know what the correct treatment of those files is. Do we change them to MacPorts, since we maintain the files now, or do we need to retain the mention of Apple in those files that Apple originated, possibly adding our name to theirs? And if so, do we change their name to Apple Inc., since that is their name now? If someone could look up what the legally correct thing to do here is, that would be great. Whatever the outcome, we should apply it to all files.

Apple definitely retains the copyright on any portions of the code that
were written at Apple. Their copyright notices and license should not be
removed. We add our own notices for the portions we write. We can either
choose to distribute those portions under the same license as Apple's
portions (including clause 3 which specifically mentions Apple's name)
or we can add our own license in addition, and the combined work would
be subject to both.

Personally I don't think clause 3 is a huge deal. The sort of things it
restricts are probably restricted anyway in many jurisdictions. Not
worth adding a second, slightly different license in the affected files IMO.

- Josh