Again, the following is possibly valid for Germany only: There is a tight relationship between license and copyright. You cannot license something that cannot be copyrighted. This might be different in other countries. -Markus From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
Sent: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2018 19:31
To: EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] License guidance for auto-generated files I'm Canadian.
The question asked about license not copyright.
Ivar, most people from the US think they can export their legal system to Europe. This simply does not work, as US copyright laws and German copyright law is totally different (e. g. in Germany you cannot see or buy IP but you only can sell or buy licences to use IP). So as the EF really cares about IP, they should ask the EF Europe / EF Germany for their lawyer's opionions, instead of posting individual non-official opinions. As I told you in JavaLand, in Germany rules are different than in the US. A copyright can only be granted to humans, and to do that, the human has to create a more or less exceptional work by his own hands / brains (in particular, things that the average engineer could invent could not be copyrighted). So whatevery a machine creates can definitively not be copyrighted! If a machine applies a copyright into a machine-generated work, this would be worthless (at best, it would be confusing; at worst, it could be interpreted as an attempt of fraud). -Markus Thanks Markus! Do you by that say that it must NOT be "1"? Or would that be ok as well? Auto-generated files (at least in Germany) do not fulfil any criteria needed to be copyrighted at all, as machines cannot hold copyright. Hence (at least in Germany) it must be "2". -Markus I would say "1" sounds like the reasonable answer, but there may be some rules that I am not aware of... Hi,
The Jakarta EL Reference Implementation has a JavaCC grammar for EL that
is licensed under the standard license:
EPL-2.0 OR GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath-exception-2.0
This grammar is then used as an input to JavaCC which generates a Java
parser for EL that consists of a handful of Java files.
A question has arisen as to what license header should be applied to the
generated files.
Is it:
1. The standard license?
2. No license (because they are auto-generated)?
3. Something else?
I'm expecting the answer to either be "1" or "1 or 2 but we recommend 1".
Currently, "1" is being used.
Thanks,
Mark
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
-- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc. |
