On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote:
Unless anyone has a stronger counterpoint to the view Richard has expressed here, I'd like to proceed with plans to stop allowing commits that add new copyright headers to new file additions in Glance (LICENSE file is an obvious exception).
Just a clarification, I wasn't taking any position on the issue, but rather countering what appeared to be a strongly-held position that seemed to rest on some legal assumptions.
There could be other reasons to favor placement of copyright notices in each file. One, which I think markmc had expressed, is to make clear that OpenStack is a project in which an increasingly diverse set of individuals and organizations participate, and which does not have a policy of requiring copyright assignment. I personally think that itself is not a good enough reason to have developers put copyright notices in source files, but others may reasonably disagree.
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files
That would have to account for the possibility of retention or inclusion of copyright (and license) notices covering code of non-OpenStack origin, as in the Sphinx example discussed a while back. Note the current answer to this FAQ item:
https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=LegalIssuesFAQ#Incorporating_BS... (though the answer given there is not the only correct answer)
Good catch. In these cases I propose we put the license notice in the global NOTICE file. I understand that is not the most conservative answer, but I believe it is still safe and correct.
- some sort of commit hook or automated process for setting up the static license header in files that are missing the license notice - seek permission from the OpenStack Foundation to move their copyright headers into LICENSE (or remove them entirely) - seek similar permission from other original copyright holders
So you want each file to continue to contain, or fix the absence of, an Apache License notice, but you don't want to see copyright notices in each file preceding such license notices. Or do I misunderstand?
Correct. As an aside, my (weak) preference would be to not have any comment boilerplate per file. But my understanding is that the short Apache license notice is required.
And you are also suggesting that the LICENSE file contain *both* a long list of copyright notices *and* the full text of the Apache License 2.0? I suppose there's a nonconfusing way in which you could do that, but I wouldn't recommend it. I'd keep the Apache License 2.0 text in a file without any additional changes.
I agree. My understanding is that LICENSE should contain the full ASL 2.0, and that NOTICE should contain any copyright notices deemed necessary. Two distinct files.
- RF