On 10/21/2013 09:33 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 10:23 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:17:19AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Full thread here:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/thread.html#...
cc'ing Thomas Goirand.
I have a feeling something is being lost in the translation from Debian to OpenStack, but I'm not sure. I've read the full thread but do not understand the issue.
Me too.
If Debian were to insist on a complete list of all copyright holders for each of its packages, it would have to shut itself down.
Indeed.
And I haven't heard an explanation yet as to *why* this information is important except "a downstream policy with no clear justification requires it".
If there is a Debian packaging requirement that requires a package maintainer to collect all identified copyright holders into a single file, that is the package maintainer's responsibility.
Agree with this too ... unless this information is somehow useful and important in a broader context.
I just posted a flamy response to openstack-dev on the original thread. Read it if you want to read a rant. If you don't - I will summarize here: - We should not include the text of the CLA in our tarballs as was suggested. There are several reasons for this, most of which that I do not feel it's necessary, and the rest of them having to do with the fact that I still feel that our CLA is pointless and kind of embarrasing. - Debian has a policy of compiling a debian/copyright file which lists the copyright that is asserted upstream. It's annoying to make it. HOWEVER - Thomas decided that he would make a debian/copyright file that was "more accurate" than our headers. That is incorrect behavior. We, as an upstream, have produced a source tarball that asserts a certain set of information regarding copyright and license. That is what debian/copyright should contain. If it did, the FTP Masters would be fine. - If Thomas, or anyone else, feels that the copyright information in any of our files is incorrect, there is a very clearly defined process to fix it. If that happens, subsequent releases will have the updated information. I do not believe we need to prove to anyone anything about our Apache licensed software. Also, we should get rid of the CLA. Because it's pointless. Monty