# What is the license of generated code? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077 "2006-05-10T00:42:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/1 "2006-05-10T00:42:06Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/2 "2006-05-10T03:18:03Z")
On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 11:41 PM, Jim C. wrote: > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) My guess is that all generated code would have the same license as rails itself, which is MIT IIRC. \_Kevin ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:19am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/3 "2006-05-10T04:19:28Z")
> My guess is that all generated code would have the same license as rails > itself, which is MIT IIRC. > > \_Kevin This 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… ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:48am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/4 "2006-05-10T04:48:50Z")
> 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 :- > > -jim 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. ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/5 "2006-05-10T04:46:55Z")
Jim C. 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. ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/6 "2006-05-10T05:35:29Z")
On Tuesday, May 09, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeremy K. wrote: > > > - The “rails” command that creates the initial tree of files > > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) 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. \_Kevin ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/7 "2006-05-10T05:08:08Z")
On May 9, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Kevin O. wrote: > > - The output of “generate scaffold” > > 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](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput) jeremy ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/8 "2006-05-10T05:50:32Z")
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:34:07AM -0000, Kevin O. wrote: > 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 ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/9 "2006-05-10T20:35:39Z")
> 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. ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/10 "2006-05-11T00:06:04Z")
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Jim C. 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](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 W… 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](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 ---
**Author:** ![jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jimc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jimc)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-is-the-license-of-generated-code/60077/11 "2006-05-10T17:18:32Z")
On 10 May 2006, at 03:46, Michael G. 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 R.