relicense shootout-meteor.rs to the shootout licence

[TeXitoi]

See #14248

I propose to change the license of shootout-meteor.rs as this is the most recent written bench.

The proposed patch (not a PR as I can't distribute the file with the new license without the authorisation of the copyright owners) is

diff --git a/src/etc/licenseck.py b/src/etc/licenseck.py
index 3287aae..1122fc9 100644
--- a/src/etc/licenseck.py
+++ b/src/etc/licenseck.py
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ exceptions = [
     "libstd/sync/spsc_queue.rs", # BSD
     "libstd/sync/mpmc_bounded_queue.rs", # BSD
     "libsync/mpsc_intrusive.rs", # BSD
+    "test/bench/shootout-meteor.rs", # BSD
 ]

 def check_license(name, contents):
diff --git a/src/test/bench/shootout-meteor.rs b/src/test/bench/shootout-meteor.rs
index dd795b7..ba4cbc3 100644
--- a/src/test/bench/shootout-meteor.rs
+++ b/src/test/bench/shootout-meteor.rs
@@ -1,12 +1,42 @@
-// Copyright 2013-2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT
-// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at
-// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT.
+// The Computer Language Benchmarks Game
+// http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/
 //
-// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
-// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license
-// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
-// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed
-// except according to those terms.
+// contributed by the Rust Project Developers
+
+// Copyright (c) 2013-2014 The Rust Project Developers
+//
+// All rights reserved.
+//
+// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
+// are met:
+//
+// - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
+//   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+//
+// - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+//   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
+//   the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
+//   distribution.
+//
+// - Neither the name of "The Computer Language Benchmarks Game" nor
+//   the name of "The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks" nor the
+//   names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote
+//   products derived from this software without specific prior
+//   written permission.
+//
+// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
+// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
+// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
+// FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+// COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
+// INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
+// (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
+// SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
+// HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
+// STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
+// ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
+// OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

 #![feature(phase)]
 #[phase(syntax)] extern crate green;

First, I must say that, IMHO, the shootout license is compatible to the MIT license in the philosophy, and thus, relicensing to this license may be possible without any agreement (but I am not a lawyer).

I propose to list all the contributors of this file according to their contribution, and ask them to agree to change the license of every shootout benchmark (src/test/bench/shootout*.rs) in the comments of this issue. I'll update the list according to their response.

Non trivial contributors:

• @TeXitoi: OK

Contributors appearing in git blame that are trivial (trivial update due to language changes)

• @alexcrichton (lifetime syntax, privacy fix): MoCo employee
• @erickt ('self lifetime illegal): OK
• @edwardw (move swap): OK
• @pcwalton (~[T] removing): MoCo employee
• @richo (rename StrBuff to String (only apear in a comment, the comment should be updated as String is not used): waiting for response
• @bjz (remove println from prelude): OK

Contributors with removed contributions (acceptation of the license change is not necessary IMHO):

• @kballard (from_utf8_owned remove): optional
• @thestinger (rename std::vec -> std::slice): optional
• @mankyKitty (rev() modifications): OK
• @SimonSapin (rename from_utf8_owned_opt()): OK
• @huonw (vec_ng remove): optional
• @Kimundi (iterator refactor): optional

Finally, I'd like that @brson or any core developer validates the process, and say if trivial changes should be taken into account for that.

When the license change will be accepted, I'll send a PR.

[SimonSapin]

For what it’s worth, I agree to have re-licensed under BSD any contribution I made under MIT, including any contribution to https://github.com/mozilla/rust

[brson]

Thanks for undertaking this @TeXitoi. Some thoughts on the process here:

• All moco employees' work can be relicensed here without written permission
• The most important thing is that we get written permission from the major authors
• Agree we don't need permission from authors whose code no longer appears
• Although we want permission from all authors, we can probably exercise some discretion for trivial changes if we can't round everybody up.
• A lot of these authors will appear on multiple benchmarks, so get a blanket statement to relicense all of them

Finally, please email me the written statement from each, and I will file them somewhere. Please don't r+ this until I'm satisfied we're covered.

[TeXitoi]

@brson thanks for responding. I have some questions:

• How can I know that someone is a moco employee?
• Does a comment on github is a "written permission"? For example, does the comment above of @SimonSapin is enough?
• Then, I'll email you the links to the agreements?

[mankyKitty]

awww my contribution was removed? Nutz. :) Must do more in the future...

@TeXitoi I don't have an opinion either way with respect to the licence. There are people far more involved than I (like yourself) that should make the decision. :)

[TeXitoi]

Updated OP:

• asks for relicense every shootout benchmarks
• update contributors' status according to comments.

[edwardw]

I hereby agree to change the license of shootout benchmark source files to the proposed one and this should be considered as good as a written permission.

[Kimundi]

I also agree to change the license of shootout benchmark source files to the one proposed here.

[TeXitoi]

Updated contributors' status according to comments.

@brson Any answers to my questions?

[brson]

@TeXitoi moco employees tend to have "@mozilla.com" addresses.

@alexcrichton, @pcwalton, @SimonSapin are moco.

Most everybody on your list is a long-standing contributor that will agree, but we still do need to get them to agree. I will put some time into this tomorrow to make sure I'm confident we've got a reasonable documentation trail, then I'll merge.

I think comments on GitHub are good enough, but mostly because this is such a minor licensing issue that it hardly matters. If we were being more careful we would craft the exact statement we want them to say and tell them to copy and paste it into an email. A statement like the following is probably best:

"I agree to relicense any previous contributions to http://github.com/mozilla/rust according to the following terms:

[complete license text]"

[brson]

@TeXitoi I sent an email to the stragglers.

[brson]

Ha, didn't realize this was not a PR until just now.

[Ryman]

You might want to check how you're checking git blame? I'm unlisted for both trivial & non-trivial; so you might want to double-check you haven't missed anyone else. (for reference, I recently rewrote the bulk of mandlebrot)

[brson]

@Ryman this particular issues is only about the meteor benchmark. You may not have any code remaining in this one. #14248 is about all the benchmarks.

[brson]

@TeXitoi let's move forward with this one. The only statement I'm missing is @richo's and it sounds like his was a minor patch. I've updated #14248 with the list of statements I have as well as a template statement for relicensing the remaining benchmarks.