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

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-04-30 05:26, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> On Apr 28, 2018, at 04:31, Joshua Root wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Here's an in-depth post about this problem:
> 
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2121/mit-license-and-all-rights-reserved/4403#4403
> 
> It seems the phrase "All rights reserved" is contradictory and confusing in the case of an open-source license, and yet, it is part of the BSD license text. If we remove the phrase, can we still claim that we are using the BSD license?

Interestingly, the phrase is not part of the OSI-approved BSD-3-Clause
license text:
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

>>>> @@ -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.

For the cargo port group, the mistake was introduced by me. I think
I copied the license text from another port group, assuming all would
use the same. I should have checked more thoroughly.

Where would I find the license text to use for new files? Looking around
now, shouldn't LICENSE in the top-level directory contain the license
text we want? That file also explicitly mentions Apple and was added
only a year ago [1]. Looking at it now, I would say it is incorrect.

However, why do we add a license header to the port groups at all?
We also do not add it to each Portfile. I think we should drop the
license headers from all port groups.

Rainer

[1] https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/287