GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 755135
Please clarify the license of Doxyfile
Last modified: 2018-07-30 10:27:47 UTC
The getting started guide [1] recommends generating a Doxyfile using `doxygen -g`. I'm interested in finding out the license for Doxyfiles created that way. It appears that the file is generated from GPL source [2], which would make it GPL. The license has a clause that specifically states that documents produced with Doxygen are considered derivative works of their input files and Doxygen doesn't affect their license: Documents produced by Doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by this license. Even with this clause, the Doxyfile would be GPL because its source input is GPL. That potentially creates a problem for projects using Doxygen with non-GPL licenses. Because I don't think this is intended, I thought I'd raise the issue here. I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify: Under what terms does the Doxygen project license generated Doxyfiles? Also, it would be really helpful to update any generated Doxyfiles to state the license terms. Thanks! [1]: https://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual/starting.html [2]: https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/master/src/config.xml
Sorry, I meant it would be helpful to update the Doxyfile template to state the license terms.
Firstly, it is not my intention to have the GPL applied to the generated default Doxyfile. If this would be the case I would have added a copyright statement to the file saying so. You are maybe referring to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL Strictly speaking doxygen is indeed copying a part of it self to the output when creating a default configuration file, but nothing prevents you from reading the manual and constructing a Doxyfile from scratch. So I don't see how the GPL could then apply to a configuration file derived from a default and not to another created from scratch and how one could even tell the difference. What would the Doxyfile need to state in your opinion to prevent any confusion?
Thanks for the reply, Dimitri. My concern isn't that I wouldn't be able to use a Doxyfile or Doxygen, it's that I would have to create the file from scratch and not be able to take advantage of the nice and useful comments that provide help and documentation. For now, I've switched to using a minimal Doxyfile until we get the confusion cleared up as you suggest. I think all we would need to do is state that the Doxyfile that is produced isn't licensed under GPL though it is based on a GPL input file, just like the exception that is stated for docs. I've also seen similar exceptions in projects like autoconf: | As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you | distribute this file as part of a program that contains a | configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under | the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. Would something like that be okay to include in the license?
Dimitri, when you get a chance, could you have another look at this issue? It would be great if we could get a clarification committed. Thank you!
As discussed in https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/pull/734 , Doxygen has moved its issue tracking to https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/issues All Doxygen tickets in GNOME Bugzilla have been migrated to Github. You can subscribe and participate in the new ticket in Github. You can find the corresponding Github ticket by searching for its Bugzilla ID (number) in Github. Hence I am closing this GNOME Bugzilla ticket. Please use the corresponding ticket in Github instead. Thanks a lot!