On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 07:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 06:12 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > On 05/01/2013 06:05 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Mark Washenberger
> >> <mark.washenberger@markwash.net <mailto:mark.washenberger@markwash.net>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>      Hi folks,
> >>
> >>      I was looking into the ASL-2.0, and chanced across the fact that in
> >>      Apache projects, they require that source files only have the
> >>      License Header, and may not have any copyright notices [1]. It
> >>      occurred to me that we waste a fair amount of time on copyrights in
> >>      license headers, and it would be nice not to have to do that anymore.
> >
> > I would like to hear more about the time waste there - where are we
> > spending time? Can we do something to make that better?
> >
> >> I think that only applies to code submitted directly to ASF, but
> >> regardless you wouldn't get any objections from me regarding your
> >> proposal.  Some of the legal teams in companies involved in OpenStack
> >> however may feel differently.
> >
> > And some of the developers. I would not like that.
> >
> > I would really like to see more folks learn about appropriate addition
> > of copyright attribution when they work on a file, because I think it's
> > quite important. Don't think that removing attribution from each file
> > would prevent people from needing to do it - if we moved to a NOTICE
> > file system, they'd need to put the notice there.
>
> +1
>
> This is really an education issue. Lots of first time Open Source folks
> on the project that don't understand that copyright + license grant in
> each file is actually quite important to ensure things are actually Open
> Source in all jurisdictions.
>
> It would be good if there was a single wiki page that I could respond to
> people that -1 adding Copyright statements to explain that it is normal.
> I've had to explain that too many times

Let's get this on:

  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ