No license terms publicly shown

[kcorey]

We have an application that is using mogenerator.

We can see that the source code for mogenerator itself is MIT license (mostly irrelevant as we're not distributing mogenerator).

No mention is made of the license of the auto-generated code anywhere that I can find.

Can anyone make the license of auto-generated code clear?

Thanks,

-Ken

[rentzsch]

This is an interesting legal question.

As you've noted, mogenerator itself is MIT.

But the source file generated from you model are generated by you. mogenerator is only a tool. In fact, it does not and cannot add information to the source files that wasn't already in your model file. Well, perhaps some code snippets that I wrote like +insertInManagedObjectContext:.

My legal hunch is that the license for the source files is whatever you want it to be since it's your data (model).

Consider clang. You wrote the C source code, it compiles it to machine language. The executable has whatever license you want.

[rentzsch]

Related: of course it's straight-forward to modify the templates to insert any copyright / license info you want into the generated code.

[kcorey]

I guess my company would like it stated publicly that you don't make any claim to the code output by mogenerator. The little bits you wrote are, in fact, still bits you wrote, even if only used to enable a publicly accessible file to which we get the source code.

Yes, it's pedantic, and quite possibly way OTT, but from a legal standpoint CYA rulez.

IANAL, so anything the lawyers ask I'd like to be able to give them. They're trying to protect my company, and I'm behind them 100%.

-Ken

---

I use gpgtools to sign and encrypt my emails, do you?
http://gpgtools.org

On 3 Jan 2014, at 16:57, rentzsch [email protected] wrote:

This is an interesting legal question.

As you've noted, mogenerator itself is MIT.

But the source file generated from you model are generated by you. mogenerator is only a tool. In fact, it does not and cannot add information to the source files that wasn't already in your model file. Well, perhaps some code snippets that I wrote like +insertInManagedObjectContext:.

My legal hunch is that the license for the source files is whatever you want it to be since it's your data (model).

Consider clang. You wrote the C source code, it compiles it to machine language. The executable has whatever license you want.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[rentzsch]

Well, I wrote the templates that have the code in them and those are under the MIT license as well. So I did release even the little snippets under an MIT license.

Hopefully that's good enough for you & your lawyers.

[kcorey]

That's great news!

Unfortunately, I didn't see that specified anywhere.

The source code has a statement in the header that says you reserve all rights (fair enough...not complaining)...with "some rights reserved http://opensource.org/licenses/mit". That doesn't sound like it's all released under the MIT license.

The templates have no license comment in them, nor does there seem to be a license file anywhere I can find.

It might be a good idea to put a LICENSE file at the root of the project stating this explicitly.

Thanks,

-Ken

---

I use gpgtools to sign and encrypt my emails, do you?
http://gpgtools.org

On 3 Jan 2014, at 17:53, rentzsch [email protected] wrote:

Well, I wrote the templates that have the code in them and those are under the MIT license as well. So I did release even the little snippets under an MIT license.

Hopefully that's good enough for you & your lawyers.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[rentzsch]

Done.