License and copyright issues

[SnarkBoojum]

Hi,

I'm trying to package doctrine in Debian, but I'm hitting the following issues:

1. README.md says something about closure-compiler and there's even a LICENSE.closure-compiler, file but I haven't seen anything about it in the code ;
2. README.md also mentions some functions are derived from esprima and there's a LICENSE.esprima file, but I don't know which ;
3. Concerning the licenses, both esprima and doctrine are under BSD-2-clause so things are clearly ok, but for the closure-compiler, it's an Apache-2.0 : I don't think it's ok to relicense in this direction.

Could you clarify the matter?

Thanks,

Snark on #debian-js

[nzakas]

I'm sorry, I don't know much about any of this history. @Constellation can you comment?

[SnarkBoojum]

I'm still waiting for feedback on the matter : Debian is serious (some say picky) about licenses, so I'm quite stuck.

[nzakas]

Sorry, unfortunately there's nothing else I can do here. @Constellation created the package originally, and if he's not responding, I don't know how else to help.

[SnarkBoojum]

Perhaps you have a personal email on which we could try to reach @Constellation -- in case he doesn't check github on a regular basis ?

[Constellation]

Oops, sorry. I'm checking... bugs.webkit.org regularly.
edit: you can reach me easily by sending an email :)

README.md says something about closure-compiler and there's even a LICENSE.closure-compiler, file but I haven't seen anything about it in the code ;

Some of the type annotation extensions are derived from closure complier's one. Doctrine's type annotation is extended from the JSDoc's one at that time.

README.md also mentions some functions are derived from esprima and there's a LICENSE.esprima file, but I don't know which ;

Several utility functions like https://github.com/eslint/doctrine/blob/master/lib/typed.js#L103-L116

Concerning the licenses, both esprima and doctrine are under BSD-2-clause so things are clearly ok, but for the closure-compiler, it's an Apache-2.0 : I don't think it's ok to relicense in this direction.

Hm, is it better relisencing doctrine under apache-2.0?

[nzakas]

I'll have to ask the JS Foundation about re-licensing.

[nzakas]

I spoke with the JS Foundation and they confirmed we can re-license as Apache 2. I'll put together a pull request for that.

[SnarkBoojum]

When will you do a release with updated copyright&license ?

Thanks.

[nzakas]

Just published [email protected] with the updated license (I consider re-licensing to be a breaking change, but there are no functional differences in the package).