On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote:Just a clarification, I wasn't taking any position on the issue, but
> 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).
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.
That would have to account for the possibility of retention or
> - a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for
> all currently existing files
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_BSD.2FMIT_Licensed_Code
(though the answer given there is not the only correct answer)
So you want each file to continue to contain, or fix the absence of,
> - 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
an Apache License notice, but you don't want to see copyright notices
in each file preceding such license notices. Or do I misunderstand?
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.
- RF