discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv
 help / color / Atom feed
* mandoc.css license
@ 2018-11-26  6:51 Mark Harris
  2018-11-26 15:29 ` Ingo Schwarze
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Harris @ 2018-11-26  6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: discuss

It appears that it is intended that the mandoc.css file included with
mandoc be served as a static file from any web server that is serving
mandoc-generated html.  If this file is BSD licensed, should it have a
copyright notice and copy of the BSD license at the top so that it can
be distributed separately?  Or does it not require this because CSS is
not considered to be code or documentation?  Would it be possible to
clarify the status of this file in the LICENSE file and/or in a comment
at the beginning of mandoc.css?

Thanks,
 - Mark
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: mandoc.css license
  2018-11-26  6:51 mandoc.css license Mark Harris
@ 2018-11-26 15:29 ` Ingo Schwarze
  2018-11-26 16:43   ` Mark Harris
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Schwarze @ 2018-11-26 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Harris; +Cc: discuss

Hi Mark,

Mark Harris wrote on Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:51:35PM -0800:

> It appears that it is intended that the mandoc.css file included with
> mandoc be served as a static file from any web server that is serving
> mandoc-generated html.

Correct.  Using it as-is is recommended by default, but there may
be valid reasons to modify it or write your own, in particular when
integrating mandoc output into a larger website together with other
content, manpages.debian.org being a prominent example, even if
slightly overengineered for my taste.

> If this file is BSD licensed,

Arguably, it was, according to this sentence in the LICENSE file:

  The mandoc distribution as a whole is distributed by its developers
  under the following license:

> should it have a copyright notice and copy of the BSD license at the
> top so that it can be distributed separately?

In so far as it was ISC licensed, it could already be distributed
separately, at least when distributing the ISC license together
with it.

In general, you are right, files without Copyright and license
information tend to cause confusion, so unless clearly so small
and/or non-creative that there can be no Copyright on them,
clarification is advisable and costs nothing.

> Or does it not require this because CSS is not considered to be code
> or documentation?

That doesn't matter, all creative works fall under Copyright, in
particular any text, and it is clearly a text file.

> Would it be possible to clarify the status of this file in the LICENSE
> file and/or in a comment at the beginning of mandoc.css?

Sure, done, see below.

Yours,
  Ingo


Log Message:
-----------
Place mandoc.css into the public domain.

The reason for doing this rather than using the ISC license 
is that i guess that in some contexts, a requirement to preserve
a Copyright and license header might be inconvenient, and i really
don't care at all how people use it.

What matters is that they do use it, or something similar - attempts
to use mandoc without any CSS are a constant source of grief and
bogus bug reports because HTML without CSS doesn't look very good:
the more structural and semantic and the less presentational and 
old-fashioned the HTML, the more so.

Thanks to Mark Harris <mark dot hsj at gmail dot com> for pointing out
that the permissions on this particular file were unclear.

Modified Files:
--------------
    mandoc:
        mandoc.css

Revision Data
-------------
Index: mandoc.css
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/mandoc.css,v
retrieving revision 1.38
retrieving revision 1.39
diff -Lmandoc.css -Lmandoc.css -u -p -r1.38 -r1.39
--- mandoc.css
+++ mandoc.css
@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 /* $Id$ */
 /*
  * Standard style sheet for mandoc(1) -Thtml and man.cgi(8).
+ *
+ * Written by Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org>.
+ * I place this file into the public domain.
+ * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute it for any purpose
+ * with or without fee is hereby granted, without any conditions.
  */
 
 /* Global defaults. */
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: mandoc.css license
  2018-11-26 15:29 ` Ingo Schwarze
@ 2018-11-26 16:43   ` Mark Harris
  2018-11-26 17:16     ` Ingo Schwarze
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Harris @ 2018-11-26 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Schwarze; +Cc: discuss

On 2018-11-26 7:29, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Mark Harris wrote on Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:51:35PM -0800:
> 
>> It appears that it is intended that the mandoc.css file included with
>> mandoc be served as a static file from any web server that is serving
>> mandoc-generated html.
> 
> Correct.  Using it as-is is recommended by default, but there may
> be valid reasons to modify it or write your own, in particular when
> integrating mandoc output into a larger website together with other
> content, manpages.debian.org being a prominent example, even if
> slightly overengineered for my taste.
> 
>> If this file is BSD licensed,
> 
> Arguably, it was, according to this sentence in the LICENSE file:
> 
>   The mandoc distribution as a whole is distributed by its developers
>   under the following license:
> 
>> should it have a copyright notice and copy of the BSD license at the
>> top so that it can be distributed separately?
> 
> In so far as it was ISC licensed, it could already be distributed
> separately, at least when distributing the ISC license together
> with it.
> 
> In general, you are right, files without Copyright and license
> information tend to cause confusion, so unless clearly so small
> and/or non-creative that there can be no Copyright on them,
> clarification is advisable and costs nothing.
> 
>> Or does it not require this because CSS is not considered to be code
>> or documentation?
> 
> That doesn't matter, all creative works fall under Copyright, in
> particular any text, and it is clearly a text file.
> 
>> Would it be possible to clarify the status of this file in the LICENSE
>> file and/or in a comment at the beginning of mandoc.css?
> 
> Sure, done, see below.
> 
> Yours,
>   Ingo
> 
> 
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Place mandoc.css into the public domain.
> 
> The reason for doing this rather than using the ISC license 
> is that i guess that in some contexts, a requirement to preserve
> a Copyright and license header might be inconvenient, and i really
> don't care at all how people use it.
> 
> What matters is that they do use it, or something similar - attempts
> to use mandoc without any CSS are a constant source of grief and
> bogus bug reports because HTML without CSS doesn't look very good:
> the more structural and semantic and the less presentational and 
> old-fashioned the HTML, the more so.
> 
> Thanks to Mark Harris <mark dot hsj at gmail dot com> for pointing out
> that the permissions on this particular file were unclear.
> 
> Modified Files:
> --------------
>     mandoc:
>         mandoc.css
> 
> Revision Data
> -------------
> Index: mandoc.css
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/mandoc.css,v
> retrieving revision 1.38
> retrieving revision 1.39
> diff -Lmandoc.css -Lmandoc.css -u -p -r1.38 -r1.39
> --- mandoc.css
> +++ mandoc.css
> @@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
>  /* $Id$ */
>  /*
>   * Standard style sheet for mandoc(1) -Thtml and man.cgi(8).
> + *
> + * Written by Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org>.
> + * I place this file into the public domain.
> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute it for any purpose
> + * with or without fee is hereby granted, without any conditions.
>   */
>  
>  /* Global defaults. */
> 

Thanks!  The LICENSE file mentions "all code and documentation contained
in the mandoc toolkit" so that was the reason for trying to guess
whether this CSS file was "code".

 - Mark
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: mandoc.css license
  2018-11-26 16:43   ` Mark Harris
@ 2018-11-26 17:16     ` Ingo Schwarze
  2018-11-26 17:31       ` Mark Harris
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Schwarze @ 2018-11-26 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Harris; +Cc: discuss

Hi Mark,

Mark Harris wrote on Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:43:58AM -0800:

> The LICENSE file mentions "all code and documentation contained
> in the mandoc toolkit" so that was the reason for trying to guess
> whether this CSS file was "code".

I see.  The LICENSE file only used that wording in the following
context, though:

  With the exceptions noted below, all code and documentation
  contained in the mandoc toolkit is protected by the Copyright
  of the following developers:

So even if CSS weren't code (i think it is), that would only have
left the authorship / ownership of Copyright of mandoc.css unstated,
the sentence

  The mandoc distribution as a whole is distributed by its developers
  under the following license:

does not have any such qualification.

But i see how the wording could make people ponder unintended subtleties,
so i simplified the wording with the commit below.

Yours,
  Ingo


Log Message:
-----------
Mark Harris pointed out that people might have doubts whether all files
contained in the mandoc toolkit are "code and documentation", and whether
this is of any consequence for licensing, so clarify.

Modified Files:
--------------
    mandoc:
        LICENSE

Revision Data
-------------
Index: LICENSE
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/LICENSE,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -LLICENSE -LLICENSE -u -p -r1.20 -r1.21
--- LICENSE
+++ LICENSE
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 $Id$
 
-With the exceptions noted below, all code and documentation
-contained in the mandoc toolkit is protected by the Copyright
-of the following developers:
+With the exceptions noted below, all non-trivial files contained
+in the mandoc toolkit are protected by the Copyright of the following
+developers:
 
 Copyright (c) 2008-2012, 2014 Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>
 Copyright (c) 2010-2018 Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org>
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Copyright (c) 2004 Ted Unangst <tedu@ope
 Copyright (c) 1994 Christos Zoulas <christos@netbsd.org>
 Copyright (c) 2003, 2007, 2008, 2014 Jason McIntyre <jmc@openbsd.org>
 
-See the individual source files for information about who contributed
+See the individual files for information about who contributed
 to which file during which years.
 
 
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: mandoc.css license
  2018-11-26 17:16     ` Ingo Schwarze
@ 2018-11-26 17:31       ` Mark Harris
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Harris @ 2018-11-26 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Schwarze; +Cc: discuss

On 2018-11-26 9:16, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> But i see how the wording could make people ponder unintended subtleties,
> so i simplified the wording with the commit below.

Thanks!  The two commits look good to me.

 - Mark
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-11-26  6:51 mandoc.css license Mark Harris
2018-11-26 15:29 ` Ingo Schwarze
2018-11-26 16:43   ` Mark Harris
2018-11-26 17:16     ` Ingo Schwarze
2018-11-26 17:31       ` Mark Harris

discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv

Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/mandoc-discuss

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.mandoc.discuss


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git