I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to claim copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) over the files generated by :- - The "rails" command that creates the initial tree of files - The output of "generate scaffold" - The output of the third-party "generate ajax_scaffold" In other words, how should I distribute all the files that constitute my software? In practice, just checking everything into svn whether it was auto-generated or not seems to be the norm, and while I''m happy to do that, it''s not clear to me what licenses apply to such code. If anyone has really thought about this, please share your experiences! -jim
On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Jim Cheetham wrote:>I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code >(scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. > >Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to claim >copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) >over the files generated by :- > >- The "rails" command that creates the initial tree of files >- The output of "generate scaffold" >- The output of the third-party "generate ajax_scaffold" > >In other words, how should I distribute all the files that constitute my >software? > >In practice, just checking everything into svn whether it was >auto-generated or not seems to be the norm, and while I''m happy to do >that, it''s not clear to me what licenses apply to such code. > >If anyone has really thought about this, please share your experiences! > >-jim >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/railsMy guess is that all generated code would have the same license as rails itself, which is MIT IIRC. _Kevin -- Posted with http://DevLists.com. Sign up and save your mailbox.
> > My guess is that all generated code would have the same license as rails > itself, which is MIT IIRC. > > _KevinThis may be true it may not be, I wouldn''t make any assumptions about this. The pregenerated code is nothing more than the output of a program based on your input. The output of a program is generally considered to be owned by user not the application developer. I''d be very interested in seeing more discussion on this... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Jim Cheetham wrote:> I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code > (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. > > Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to claim > copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) > over the files generated by :-I usually prefer the GPL but I don''t see any problem with using the MIT license for scripted web applications. The primary thing the GPL brings over the MIT is a guarantee the end user will get the source code. In the case of a rails app it''s a bit hard to not give them the source. It''s a lot easier to just use the MIT license. There''s the added benifit that if you actually do write a useful chunk of code it''s more likely that the Rails community would be able to re-use it. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to claim > copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) > over the files generated by :- > > -jimI usually prefer the GPL but I don''t see any problem with using the MIT license for scripted web applications. The primary thing the GPL brings over the MIT is a guarantee the end user will get the source code. In the case of a rails app it''s a bit hard to not give them the source. It''s a lot easier to just use the MIT license. There''s the added benifit that if you actually do write a useful chunk of code it''s more likely that the Rails community would be able to re-use it. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On May 9, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Kevin Olbrich wrote:> On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Jim Cheetham wrote: >> I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code >> (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. >> >> Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able to >> claim >> copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) >> over the files generated by :- >> >> - The "rails" command that creates the initial tree of files >> - The output of "generate scaffold" >> - The output of the third-party "generate ajax_scaffold" >> >> In other words, how should I distribute all the files that >> constitute my >> software? >> >> In practice, just checking everything into svn whether it was >> auto-generated or not seems to be the norm, and while I''m happy to do >> that, it''s not clear to me what licenses apply to such code. >> >> If anyone has really thought about this, please share your >> experiences! > > My guess is that all generated code would have the same license as > rails > itself, which is MIT IIRC.http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput jeremy
On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Kemper wrote:>On May 9, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Kevin Olbrich wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Jim Cheetham wrote: >>> I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code >>> (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. >>> >>> Basically, if I set up a Rails project, can or should I be able >>>to >> claim >>> copyright (and therefore have the ability to license under e.g. GPL) >>> over the files generated by :- >>> >>> - The "rails" command that creates the initial tree of files >>> - The output of "generate scaffold" >>> - The output of the third-party "generate ajax_scaffold" >>> >>> In other words, how should I distribute all the files that >> >>>constitute my >>> software? >>> >>> In practice, just checking everything into svn whether it was >>> auto-generated or not seems to be the norm, and while I''m happy to do >>> that, it''s not clear to me what licenses apply to such code. >>> >>> If anyone has really thought about this, please share your >> >>>experiences! >> >> My guess is that all generated code would have the same license as >>> rails >> itself, which is MIT IIRC. > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > >jeremy >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/railsSo following that links logic, a substantial portion of the generated code is ''copied'' into the scaffold files. For the most part scaffolds just substitute variables into text templates within the code. It could be construed to suggest that the generated code is subject to the original licsense. _Kevin -- Posted with http://DevLists.com. Sign up and save your mailbox.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:34:07AM -0000, Kevin Olbrich wrote:> On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Kemper wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Jim Cheetham wrote: > >>> I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code > >>> (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails. > > > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > So following that links logic, a substantial portion of the generated > code is ''copied'' into the scaffold files. For the most part scaffolds > just substitute variables into text templates within the code. It could > be construed to suggest that the generated code is subject to the > original licsense.Yes; that is the sort of situation I see as being possible. In the GPL FAQ example, the output of ''ls'' cannot be controlled by the author of ''ls'', but the ouput of ''bison'' *might* be. Closer to Rails, my example would be the AjaxScaffold -- the app itself is under the MIT license, so I can modify and use the app for my own purposes, including commercially. That''s fine, as far as it goes; but I don''t intend to modify AjaxScaffold itself, as I don''t actually need that freedom. I just want to use it''s output. If I wanted to GPL my project, could I GPL the files that have been generated by AjaxScaffold in my application? Well, if I don''t own the copyright on them, I can''t, can I? (This is more specifically interesting if I don''t want to modify the generated code; while the Rails scaffold CRUD is a little ugly, AjaxScaffold output is nice, and suitable to leave in as a back-end DB manipulation feature) Ideally, code generators would include a header comment that explicitly laid out the usage terms, but that would probably require the original author to understand them, and I don''t think that''s true at the moment. -jim
On 10 May 2006, at 03:46, Michael Greenly wrote:> The primary thing the GPL brings over the MIT is a guarantee the end > user will get the source code.This is the worst place in the World to do a GPL vs. MIT/BSD war, however: GPL brings that advantage, yes, and it also means that modifications are going to come sailing in from all over the place, however it also makes it virtually impossible for 95% of us who make money from Rails development from being able to do so right now. Our money does not come from salaries, we do not have the comfort of sales teams, we fight the dragons of insolvency daily. Do you think all the web apps out there being developed in RoR would be built using Rails if we all had to give our code, generated code, plugins and other stuff away for free, because of what will now probably be known as the ''Bison-like output issue''? Also, as the MIT license is much freer (in the ''liberal'' sense) than the GPL, providing you retain the Copyright, there is absolutely nothing stopping you creating a fork of the Rails code base and your generated code base and releasing it under the GPL license. Doing it the other way around however, is impossible: you can''t convert GPL code into a MIT/BSD license code base, it''s a one-way street. In other words, right now, there are REALLY, REALLY good reasons why MIT is the way to go on Rails, plugins, engines and other assorted bits and bobs. However, if you''re desperate for a GPL licensed Rails, you may feel free to go forth and create that fork. Just don''t expect professional developers to have the stomach for it right now. :-(> In the case of a rails app it''s a bit hard to not give them the > source.It''s only a bit hard - not impossible. I''ve not tried creating an exe with Rails yet, but in theory, it''s possible (and if it isn''t now, it soon will be). -- Paul Robinson
>> The primary thing the GPL brings over the MIT is a guarantee the end >> user will get the source code....>GPL brings that advantage, yes, and it also means that modifications >are going to come sailing in from all over the place, however it also >makes it virtually impossible for 95% of us who make money from Rails >development from being able to do so right now. Our money does not >come from salaries, we do not have the comfort of sales teams, we >fight the dragons of insolvency daily.Remember that Rails is hosted on a server, not distributed as a copy. GPL does not require release of modifications in this case. Think of Tivo. The box is distributed, but Tivo is not required to release their proprietary modifications to Linux! GPL 3 is being changed to stop this, as RMS puts it. ''Tivoization'' of Linux. Linus is sticking with the gpl v2. Besides, you don''t have to modify Rails to write programs in Rails. so MIT v. GPL is not a big issue if you want to write a site with Rails and make money. If someone is paying you a salary, or hires you as a contractor to write something in Rails, the code is going to belong to them and not you (they are paying) so it isn''t an issue there. Its pretty much a non-issue. This is really only an issue if you plan on taking Rails, forking your own version, putting your version in a box and selling it. Why would you want to do that? You would have to shoulder all support and future development by cutting yourself off from the Rails community. If you were IBM, you could afford that (ie websphere), but if your just starting out, its not a realistic choice.
>It''s only a bit hard - not impossible. I''ve not tried creating an exe >with Rails yet, but in theory, it''s possible (and if it isn''t now, it >soon will be).The whole point of web based apps is to NOT create an exe. The point is to host the app on a web server and allow any architecture to use the app via a web browser. Using a web hosting frame work to create an exe is kind of like ironing your shirt with a steam roller. It could be done, but you would need one heck of an ironing board (read infrastructure). If you are thinking along the lines of creating exe''s with Rails, you are really missing the point of web hosted apps.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:57:22AM -0500, Sean Lynch wrote: } >>The primary thing the GPL brings over the MIT is a guarantee the end } >>user will get the source code. } ... } >GPL brings that advantage, yes, and it also means that modifications } >are going to come sailing in from all over the place, however it also } >makes it virtually impossible for 95% of us who make money from Rails } >development from being able to do so right now. Our money does not } >come from salaries, we do not have the comfort of sales teams, we } >fight the dragons of insolvency daily. } } Remember that Rails is hosted on a server, not distributed as a copy. } GPL does not require release of modifications in this case. This is accurate. } Think of Tivo. The box is distributed, but Tivo is not required to } release their proprietary modifications to Linux! This is wholly inaccurate. TiVo *does* release their proprietary kernel modifications. What they also do, however, is have a proprietary bootloader (partly or entirely in hardware, I believe) that verifies a cryptographic signature on the kernel and refuses to boot if it doesn''t recognize the signature. This means that a kernel that would otherwise run on the TiVo hardware, including TiVo''s publicly available kernel modifications, will not boot on TiVo hardware without an appropriate cryptographic signature. Only TiVo, Inc. holds the cryptographic key to sign the kernel, however. } GPL 3 is being changed to stop this, as RMS puts it. ''Tivoization'' of } Linux. Linus is sticking with the gpl v2. This is accurate. } Besides, you don''t have to modify Rails to write programs in Rails. The GPL covers "derived works," which includes any code based on or linked to the original code. Any Rails app would be covered by the GPL if Rails itself were GPL-licenced. } so MIT v. GPL is not a big issue if you want to write a site with } Rails and make money. That is somewhat accurate. If you are running the site yourself, you are not technically distributing the app and, therefore, the provisions in the GPL (if GPL''d code were involved) about providing code do not apply. If you are selling the app, however, they would. } If someone is paying you a salary, or hires you as a contractor to } write something in Rails, the code is going to belong to them and not } you (they are paying) so it isn''t an issue there. True. } Its pretty much a non-issue. Eh, not quite. } This is really only an issue if you plan on taking Rails, forking your } own version, putting your version in a box and selling it. Why would } you want to do that? You would have to shoulder all support and future } development by cutting yourself off from the Rails community. If you } were IBM, you could afford that (ie websphere), but if your just } starting out, its not a realistic choice. Imagine, for the moment, that Microsoft comes to the conclusion that ASP.NET isn''t cutting it and they need a new web framework for their developers. They have the right to take Rails, compile it to MSIL with a Ruby.NET compiler (doesn''t exist just yet, but it will), make whatever changes they like to make it play nice with VS.NET designers and such, and ship it under whatever name they like. The MIT license allows this use. Is that bad? Arguable. Is it likely? No. Is it a non-issue? It depends on who you ask. Note that I am not expressing an opinion in this message, I am only correcting some misconceptions. --Greg
Michael Greenly
2006-May-10 18:35 UTC
[Rails] Re: Re: What is the license of generated code?
> > GPL brings that advantage, yes, and it also means that modifications > are going to come sailing in from all over the place, however it also > makes it virtually impossible for 95% of us who make money from Rails > development from being able to do so right now. Our money does not > come from salaries, we do not have the comfort of sales teams, we > fight the dragons of insolvency daily. >You''ve completely lost me? The point of my post was that in this application (web applications with scripted lanaguages) there is just not that much of a difference. The MIT license does not require you to distribute the source code to your customer, so in theory you could compile or obfuscate it before releaseing it. The GPL would prevent you from doing this.> Do you think all the web apps out there being developed in RoR would > be built using Rails if we all had to give our code, generated code, > plugins and other stuff away for free, because of what will now > probably be known as the ''Bison-like output issue''?Again you''ve lost me? If you are contracted to write applications with Rails you basically have to give them your source, it''s a scripted language. If you''re hosting a service you''re not required to give out the source with either license.> > Also, as the MIT license is much freer (in the ''liberal'' sense) than > the GPL, providing you retain the Copyright, there is absolutely > nothing stopping you creating a fork of the Rails code base and your > generated code base and releasing it under the GPL license. Doing it > the other way around however, is impossible: you can''t convert GPL > code into a MIT/BSD license code base, it''s a one-way street.I think you need to look into this a bit more. Neither license allows re-licensing.> > In other words, right now, there are REALLY, REALLY good reasons why > MIT is the way to go on Rails, plugins, engines and other assorted > bits and bobs. However, if you''re desperate for a GPL licensed Rails, > you may feel free to go forth and create that fork.I''m not sure why you say this, but since I''m the only one you quoted I''ll respond. This was my point exactly. The Rails community chose the MIT license we as Rails developers should do the same. Even those developers who may prefer the GPL because in this case the GPL gets you so little. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Jim Cheetham wrote:> I''m trying to figure out what the software license would be for code > (scaffolds, etc) generated by Rails.And because I mentioned the GPL, people have started debating the coverage of that particular license, especially as compared to the MIT. As far as I can see, this is a complete red herring. The GPL FAQ link was talking about copyright law, not the GPL itself, and was trying to describe the circumstances under which the copyright status *of a program* could extend *to its output* - which is precisely what I was interested in. I will not be modifying the Rails application. I won''t be modifying the AjaxScaffold gem either. Therefore the only (initial) concern that I have with their license is my freedom to *use* the programs, and I have that. Whether they''re GPL or MIT at this stage has no relevance. They could even be pure Microsoft ... The Bison situation is relevant. Here''s the direct FAQ link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF To paraphrase :- "Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons ... the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program''s input inherits the copyright status of the input." This seems to fit the description of the output of both the initial ''rails'' command, and that of a generator like AjaxScaffold. The implication -- regardless of the license in use -- is that the majority of the output of these commands is under the copyright of the program author, and not me. In the case of ''rails'', my only input was the path name for the application, and therefore I can only claim copyright over those lines of the files that mention that path name explicitly. Everything else belongs to DHH, and the core team. In the case of the AjaxScaffold generator, my input is my database schema, and therefore everything other than the model and column names in the view belongs to Richard White. In the case of Bison, the FAQ indicates that they have explicitly disclaimed copyright over the output; however I note that the current Bison distribution seems to use only a generic GPL, and I can''t see any exceptions. http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/bison/COPYING?rev=1.2&root=bison&view=markup This claim of copyright over the output of such programs seems to be an unexpected outcome of copyright law. If it is true, I''d like to see some explicit comments in the generated files; or an explicit grant in the license, similar to the one claimed for Bison. Otherwise, "All your (unmodified) base belong to us" ... -jim