Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
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 isan 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.
I see that y'all have talked about this back and forth a bit - and I agree that per-file copyright can contain some headaches. However, I have had some very *practical* experience in this area; I was at one time directly involved in a major lawsuit surrounding open source, copyright and licensing (see my email address & your first guess will probably be correct). In several cases, the provenance of individual files was being investigated, and per-file copyright statements were an important part of that. IANAL, but I heartily suggest that this topic be brought up at the Foundation level, before we put anything into effect at the Project level. Mark Brown
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
However, I have had some very *practical* experience in this area; I was at one time directly involved in a major lawsuit surrounding open source, copyright and licensing (see my email address & your first guess will probably be correct). In several cases, the provenance of individual files was being investigated, and per-file copyright statements were an important part of that.
In the case of OpenStack, like many other modern projects, the most accurate file provenance record would seem to be the git commit history. That does not necessarily tell you anything conclusive about copyright ownership, but it is a better record to go by than examining copyright notices in source files (which, as noted, could well be, or become, inaccurate).
IANAL, but I heartily suggest that this topic be brought up at the Foundation level, before we put anything into effect at the Project level.
This honestly seems way too trivial to be a Foundation-level issue (I assume by that you mean something that requires a Board decision?). (Again, for clarification, I am not taking a particular stance on the issue being discussed here.) The reason is not just that the most accurate provenance record lies outside of the source tree, but also because of an awkward issue I have admittedly been trying to avoid bringing up -- the fact that the Foundation requires all contributors to sign an Apache-like CLA. Those two facts turn this into an issue that seems to me to be purely a matter of style, even if it otherwise might not be. - RF
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 02:50:31 PM:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
In several cases, the provenance of individual files was being investigated, and per-file copyright statements were an important part of that.
In the case of OpenStack, like many other modern projects, the most accurate file provenance record would seem to be the git commit history. That does not necessarily tell you anything conclusive about copyright ownership, but it is a better record to go by than examining copyright notices in source files (which, as noted, could well be, or become, inaccurate).
Ah, but when files are taken from this project and used in another (non-Stack) work, they become out-of-context from your git.
IANAL, but I heartily suggest that this topic be brought up at the Foundation level, before we put anything into effect at the Project level.
This honestly seems way too trivial to be a Foundation-level issue (I assume by that you mean something that requires a Board decision?). (Again, for clarification, I am not taking a particular stance on the issue being discussed here.)
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not? Mark Brown
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:58:27PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 02:50:31 PM:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
In several cases, the provenance of individual files was being investigated, and per-file copyright statements were an important part of that.
In the case of OpenStack, like many other modern projects, the most accurate file provenance record would seem to be the git commit history. That does not necessarily tell you anything conclusive about copyright ownership, but it is a better record to go by than examining copyright notices in source files (which, as noted, could well be, or become, inaccurate).
Ah, but when files are taken from this project and used in another (non-Stack) work, they become out-of-context from your git.
Yes, and this is the strongest argument for having *some* kind of legal notice in each file (though I don't consider it *too* strong). It may depend on what circumstance you are concerned about when a file gets used out of context. But this concern can be addressed without inclusion of per-file copyright notices (Aaron Williamson gives some suggestions in the article I referenced upthread), and the larger point is that the copyright notices are likely to become inaccurate anyway.
IANAL, but I heartily suggest that this topic be brought up at the Foundation level, before we put anything into effect at the Project level.
This honestly seems way too trivial to be a Foundation-level issue (I assume by that you mean something that requires a Board decision?). (Again, for clarification, I am not taking a particular stance on the issue being discussed here.)
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no. - RF
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:03:19 PM:
Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no.
No offense intended, Richard, honest! -- I'm just curious on what they (OpenStack Foundation as organized) would say on the topic, if they have a say at all.
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 16:19 -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:03:19 PM:
Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no.
No offense intended, Richard, honest! -- I'm just curious on what they (OpenStack Foundation as organized) would say on the topic, if they have a say at all.
The way I think about it is that Foundation employees, the Foundation's legal counsel, members of the Legal Affairs Committee etc. are all genuinely very welcome to give their perspective on issues like this. That's what this mailing list is for. The project wants help from anyone who can give it. However, ultimately the project itself will have to come to a rough consensus position on this based on everyone's input and act upon that. The way you phrased your question suggests the project should explicitly ask the Foundation for legal advice, then stop and wait until their counsel replies and, finally, act upon the advice of counsel. I can imagine scenarios where we might need to take such a course, but this certainly isn't one of them IMHO. Cheers, Mark.
Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:38:18 PM:
The way I think about it is that Foundation employees, the Foundation's legal counsel, members of the Legal Affairs Committee etc. are all genuinely very welcome to give their perspective on issues like this. That's what this mailing list is for. The project wants help from anyone who can give it.
However, ultimately the project itself will have to come to a rough consensus position on this based on everyone's input and act upon that.
The way you phrased your question suggests the project should explicitly ask the Foundation for legal advice, then stop and wait until their counsel replies and, finally, act upon the advice of counsel.
I can imagine scenarios where we might need to take such a course, but this certainly isn't one of them IMHO.
Mark, while my painful personal experience says "get a policy in place!", I'll defer to the project's consensus of course.
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 16:42 -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:38:18 PM:
The way I think about it is that Foundation employees, the Foundation's legal counsel, members of the Legal Affairs Committee etc. are all genuinely very welcome to give their perspective on issues like this. That's what this mailing list is for. The project wants help from anyone who can give it.
However, ultimately the project itself will have to come to a rough consensus position on this based on everyone's input and act upon that.
The way you phrased your question suggests the project should explicitly ask the Foundation for legal advice, then stop and wait until their counsel replies and, finally, act upon the advice of counsel.
I can imagine scenarios where we might need to take such a course, but this certainly isn't one of them IMHO.
Mark, while my painful personal experience says "get a policy in place!", I'll defer to the project's consensus of course.
"Get a policy in place" on how to deal with questions such as this? Or "get a policy in place" for copyright headers? If the former, "take to legal-discuss, form consensus, have e.g. a TC vote if necessary, document in the FAQ" is basically the policy If the latter, coming up with that policy is exactly what's happening on this thread Cheers, Mark.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:03:19 PM:
Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no.
No offense intended, Richard, honest! -- I'm just curious on what they (OpenStack Foundation as organized) would say on the topic, if they have a say at all.
Oh, I didn't take any offense at all. And I also think any viewpoint of the Foundation on this issue (or, let's say, on an issue that was less trivial than this one), if it already existed, would be interesting and given a lot of consideration. However, maybe I misread it but I took your statements to imply that the Foundation plays a role in providing legal advice to the collective body of OpenStack project contributors. - RF
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:03:19 PM:
Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no.
No offense intended, Richard, honest! -- I'm just curious on what they (OpenStack Foundation as organized) would say on the topic, if they have a say at all.
Oh, I didn't take any offense at all. And I also think any viewpoint of the Foundation on this issue (or, let's say, on an issue that was less trivial than this one), if it already existed, would be interesting and given a lot of consideration. However, maybe I misread it but I took your statements to imply that the Foundation plays a role in providing legal advice to the collective body of OpenStack project contributors.
When I emailed Lisa Miller, one of the Foundations corporate attorney team, I got the following guidance. I don't know if she "plays a role in providing legal advice to the collective body of OpenStack project contributors" but she plays a role in providing legal advice. To whom exactly I'm not certain but she replied to my email when I was asking about OpenStack LLC copyright transfer and guidance on headers. Here's the summary, collected in the wiki page at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Copyright. Generally speaking, copyright notices are no longer required in order to create or protect your copyright rights, but can be helpful in certain instances. The general rule for copyright notices is that it should include the © symbol, the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright owner. With websites, there is a genuine question of when the website is "first published." Because the date included in the copyright notice is the date of first publication, a range of dates is unnecessary. That is the year would be "2010" or "2013" rather than 2010-present. All references to "OpenStack <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack> LLC" can be changed to "OpenStack <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack> Foundation" because the copyright was transferred when the new entity was created. Here are some specific examples. *OpenStack LLC notice* When a webpage is run by OpenStack<https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack> only and is substantially revised or updated, the copyright notice should include the year that the content was updated. In a Nova dev doc page, for example, the copyright notice should be "© 2013, OpenStack<https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack> Foundation" if the content has been updated this year or "© 2012, OpenStack<https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack> Foundation" if the content was last updated in 2012. *US Government copyright notice* For the government copyright notice, if the material you received from the government has not been substantially revised or updated since you received it, do not change the year on the copyright notice. *Multiple copyright holders* If you update a page, you can add the entity you represent (self or organization) to the list of Copyright holders, but do not remove any listed Copyright headings. If the content has been substantially updated in 2013, add the year to the change. If no substantive updates or revisions have been made to the copyrighted material, the year does not need to be updated. The RST files in developer documentation and the DocBook files in operator documentation handle copyright statements slightly differently but these general guidelines apply no matter the doc file format. You are not required to add a copyright header to an RST file. Ideally the Apache header will suffice.
- RF
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 19:22 -0500, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 05/14/2013 04:03:19 PM:
Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mostly, I wanted to suggest that a lawyer needs to advise us on this. The Foundation is our go-to place for legal help, is it not?
That is a very interesting question, as phrased, but I'd say the answer is no.
No offense intended, Richard, honest! -- I'm just curious on what they (OpenStack Foundation as organized) would say on the topic, if they have a say at all.
Oh, I didn't take any offense at all. And I also think any viewpoint of the Foundation on this issue (or, let's say, on an issue that was less trivial than this one), if it already existed, would be interesting and given a lot of consideration. However, maybe I misread it but I took your statements to imply that the Foundation plays a role in providing legal advice to the collective body of OpenStack project contributors.
When I emailed Lisa Miller, one of the Foundations corporate attorney team, I got the following guidance. I don't know if she "plays a role in providing legal advice to the collective body of OpenStack project contributors" but she plays a role in providing legal advice. To whom exactly I'm not certain but she replied to my email when I was asking about OpenStack LLC copyright transfer and guidance on headers. Here's the summary, collected in the wiki page at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Copyright.
This is a good example of where we really did need guidance from the Foundation and its counsel - the issue was specifically about copyright headers relating to OpenStack LLC whose assets were transferred to the Foundation - i.e. the notices pertained to Foundation assets. Cheers, Mark.
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> writes:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
However, I have had some very *practical* experience in this area; I was at one time directly involved in a major lawsuit surrounding open source, copyright and licensing (see my email address & your first guess will probably be correct). In several cases, the provenance of individual files was being investigated, and per-file copyright statements were an important part of that.
In the case of OpenStack, like many other modern projects, the most accurate file provenance record would seem to be the git commit history. That does not necessarily tell you anything conclusive about copyright ownership, but it is a better record to go by than examining copyright notices in source files (which, as noted, could well be, or become, inaccurate).
It's worth noting that while git is very helpful in this regard, it's only as accurate as the people using it choose to make it. For instance, if you copy a file from another source into a repository, git will indicate that you are the author of every line in that file. Of course, the provenance of that file can be traced to the commit, where ideally, you indicated where (and when!) the file came from, or if you didn't, well, someone can ask you and perhaps you'll remember. In some projects, this doesn't happen very often, if ever. However, in OpenStack, we have a habit of moving large chunks of code around to different repositories. We slice off bits of projects into new ones, or combine different projects together. When I'm involved, I try to preserve as much git history as possible, but even so, it's inevitable that someone says, "Oh, I forgot I needed this file too, I'll just copy it over." Moreover, there's an entire sub-project, Oslo, tasked with the goal of making copying files between our different OpenStack projects as efficient as possible. So this happens a lot. In the case of Oslo, at least, with some working knowledge of the project, the original authorship is probably not too hard to find (e.g., this file in cinder was introduced by Charlie in a commit that said "Sync from oslo", so I should check for the same file in oslo at the same time as that commit and I see it was authored by Bob in a commit that said "Import from nova" so I should look for a similar file in nova at that time and I see it was originally authored by Alice. Easy.) And then, as you point out, you can ask the author who owns the copyright. -Jim
participants (5)
-
Anne Gentle
-
jeblair＠openstack.org
-
Mark Brown
-
Mark McLoughlin
-
Richard Fontana