Adding license header to autogenerated content
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache license to an autogenerated file.
We've recently had issues with contributors finding patches that apply to all the projects; this would definitely be one of those. My quick search [2] is showing that around 350 repositories have the license in the file. Out of the 1000+ we have in openstack (not including what's in openstack-infra or openstack-dev)
Yes, it's a python file, there is some "code" there, but it's auto-generated, either from sphinx or our cookiecutter (which now includes the license [3]). So before we use up resources in merging a bunch of patches, I wanted to know if the license was actually necessary.
Thanks for reading, Steve
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377170/1 [2] http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=Apache&i=nope&files=doc%2Fsource%... [3] https://github.com/openstack-dev/cookiecutter/blob/master/%7B%7Bcookiecutter...
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache license to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.py
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?).
Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2 on the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before asking the author to abandon the patch.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
license
to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.pyI'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?). -- Jeremy Stanley
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
any chance legal can chime in on the original question?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Steve Martinelli s.martinelli@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2 on the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before asking the author to abandon the patch.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
license
to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.pyI'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?). -- Jeremy Stanley
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:15:37AM -0400, Steve Martinelli wrote:
any chance legal can chime in on the original question?
FWIW, I agree with you and Jeremy.
Richard
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Steve Martinelli s.martinelli@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2 on the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before asking the author to abandon the patch.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
license
to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.pyI'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?). -- Jeremy Stanley
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
Thanks for your reply Richard, I'll recommend the author abandon the patch.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:15:37AM -0400, Steve Martinelli wrote:
any chance legal can chime in on the original question?
FWIW, I agree with you and Jeremy.
Richard
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Steve Martinelli <
s.martinelli@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2
on
the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before
asking
the author to abandon the patch.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org
wrote:
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
license
to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.py
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?). -- Jeremy Stanley
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
Thanks for the heads up Steve and Jeremy, I have two such changes in Trove that I’ve marked similarly.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384048/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384030/
These changes seem to come from the same production-line approach to changes that are producing quite a lot of churn with very little real advancement of the projects in question.
-amrith
From: Steve Martinelli [mailto:s.martinelli@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:48 AM To: Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com Cc: legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Adding license header to autogenerated content
Thanks for your reply Richard, I'll recommend the author abandon the patch.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com mailto:rfontana@redhat.com > wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:15:37AM -0400, Steve Martinelli wrote:
any chance legal can chime in on the original question?
FWIW, I agree with you and Jeremy.
Richard
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Steve Martinelli <s.martinelli@gmail.com mailto:s.martinelli@gmail.com > wrote:
Thanks for the reply Jeremy, that was my instinct too. I'll keep my -2 on the review in question, but I'll wait for legal to chime in before asking the author to abandon the patch.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org > wrote:
On 2016-09-27 11:29:26 -0400 (-0400), Steve Martinelli wrote:
I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache
license
to an autogenerated file.
[...]
[...]
If there is a license to that file, then it's almost certainly a BSD license (derived from Sphinx's quickstart.py):
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/master/sphinx/quickstart.pyI'm not a lawyer, but I'm not keen on adding licenses to autogenerated (e.g. non-source) files where the original authors of the generator didn't design it to emit a license in its output to begin with. I would argue that the copy in our cookiecutter repo, as a derivative of the sphinx-quickstart output, should probably never have started out with an Apache license header in the first place (I wonder whether it was added to satisfy "Python scripts without a declared license" checks in one of our static analyzers?). -- Jeremy Stanley
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org mailto:legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org mailto:legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
participants (4)
-
Amrith Kumar
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Richard Fontana
-
Steve Martinelli