Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
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.
This seems to be the detail I was missing. Can someone elaborate a bit about where this is a problem?
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:56:03AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote:
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.
This seems to be the detail I was missing. Can someone elaborate a bit about where this is a problem?
While I can't speak of 'all jurisdictions', just as a matter of common practice in open source projects this is not so, and I'm not sure what the notice 'ensures'. There is no particular *need* to have a copyright notice and license grant in each file; if that were so then probably half or more of all open source projects, including, no doubt, OpenStack dependencies, would fail the test. There are some arguments in favor of having such notices in each file, but there are also arguments against (well, particularly with respect to copyright notices, as over time they tend to become misleading as indications of the actual provenance of the file in question). Aaron Williamson wrote a good article on this topic, though I don't agree with all of his recommendations: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html - RF
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:56:03AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote:
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.
This seems to be the detail I was missing. Can someone elaborate a bit
about
where this is a problem?
While I can't speak of 'all jurisdictions', just as a matter of common practice in open source projects this is not so, and I'm not sure what the notice 'ensures'. There is no particular *need* to have a copyright notice and license grant in each file; if that were so then probably half or more of all open source projects, including, no doubt, OpenStack dependencies, would fail the test. There are some arguments in favor of having such notices in each file, but there are also arguments against (well, particularly with respect to copyright notices, as over time they tend to become misleading as indications of the actual provenance of the file in question).
Aaron Williamson wrote a good article on this topic, though I don't agree with all of his recommendations: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html
Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious to maintain. 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). - a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files - 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 (these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright headers while coding)
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 is an 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. 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.
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files
That would have to account for the possibility of retention or 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_BS... (though the answer given there is not the only correct answer)
- 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
So you want each file to continue to contain, or fix the absence of, 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
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>wrote:
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 is an 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. 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.
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files
That would have to account for the possibility of retention or 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_BS... (though the answer given there is not the only correct answer)
Good catch. In these cases I propose we put the license notice in the global NOTICE file. I understand that is not the most conservative answer, but I believe it is still safe and correct.
- 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
So you want each file to continue to contain, or fix the absence of, an Apache License notice, but you don't want to see copyright notices in each file preceding such license notices. Or do I misunderstand?
Correct. As an aside, my (weak) preference would be to not have any comment boilerplate per file. But my understanding is that the short Apache license notice is required.
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.
I agree. My understanding is that LICENSE should contain the full ASL 2.0, and that NOTICE should contain any copyright notices deemed necessary. Two distinct files.
- RF
On 05/14/2013 12:56 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com <mailto:rfontana@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:56:03AM -0700, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > > 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. > > > This seems to be the detail I was missing. Can someone elaborate a bit about > where this is a problem?
While I can't speak of 'all jurisdictions', just as a matter of common practice in open source projects this is not so, and I'm not sure what the notice 'ensures'. There is no particular *need* to have a copyright notice and license grant in each file; if that were so then probably half or more of all open source projects, including, no doubt, OpenStack dependencies, would fail the test. There are some arguments in favor of having such notices in each file, but there are also arguments against (well, particularly with respect to copyright notices, as over time they tend to become misleading as indications of the actual provenance of the file in question).
Aaron Williamson wrote a good article on this topic, though I don't agree with all of his recommendations: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html
Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious to maintain.
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).
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files - 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
(these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright headers while coding)
So the only issue I see is not doing it consistently, and leaving legacy bits in there which don't match with the policy. I'm 100% cool (+1, +2, + as much as you'll let me) with a policy where we say copyright statements should come out of the code and into the top level license file. But if that's what we are doing, we need to go run at the patches and pull all the lines quickly, then turn on the hacking rules. Leaving a whitelist is kind of terrible, and will be confusing. Yes, running through changes like this that touch lots of files are never fun, but we've done it before in Nova and Tempest for pep8 fixes. You just build a patch queue, get a couple of reviewers lined up to help sheppard it, and off you go. Also, better to do this sooner than later. The gate is pretty lightly loaded right now, so running through big changes like this work better now rather than later. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
Mark Washenberger wrote:
Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious to maintain.
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).
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files - 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
(these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright headers while coding)
I'm not totally convinced that copyright headers in source files are so tedious that it's worth going through a complex transition to get rid of maintaining them. Such transition may be something that is relatively easy to achieve in Glance, but I don't see it happening in larger code bases, and I'd prefer us to be coherent across all projects when it comes to things like file headers. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack
On 05/14/2013 03:25 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'm not totally convinced that copyright headers in source files are so tedious that it's worth going through a complex transition to get rid of maintaining them.
Such transition may be something that is relatively easy to achieve in Glance, but I don't see it happening in larger code bases, and I'd prefer us to be coherent across all projects when it comes to things like file headers.
Honestly, in Nova, their accuracy is really suspect. There is substantial confusion around them so *lots* of new contributors just copy the OpenStack copyright. Some reviewers have -1ed it when people added completely appropriate copyright headers (I've had to correct reviewers on this multiple times). So what we have is very inaccurate portrayal in source tree. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
FWIW, I see them as an inaccurate nuisance surrounded by FUD, and have no objection to getting rid of them. That said, they also don't bother me that much and I mostly ignore them. They're just clutter and I'll go with whatever people want to do. - Gabriel
-----Original Message----- From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry@openstack.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:25 PM To: legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
Mark Washenberger wrote:
Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious to maintain.
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).
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files - 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
(these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright headers while coding)
I'm not totally convinced that copyright headers in source files are so tedious that it's worth going through a complex transition to get rid of maintaining them.
Such transition may be something that is relatively easy to achieve in Glance, but I don't see it happening in larger code bases, and I'd prefer us to be coherent across all projects when it comes to things like file headers.
-- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org>wrote:
Mark Washenberger wrote:
Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious to maintain.
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).
- a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made for all currently existing files - 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
(these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright headers while coding)
I'm not totally convinced that copyright headers in source files are so tedious that it's worth going through a complex transition to get rid of maintaining them.
Such transition may be something that is relatively easy to achieve in Glance, but I don't see it happening in larger code bases, and I'd prefer us to be coherent across all projects when it comes to things like file headers.
Do we need to force a big transition? The main advantage to me is to stop devoting any cycles to copyright maintenance. A big OpenStack-wide transition sounds like adding a lot of cycles. Rather than bothering with consistent headers, we could have a consistent policy that says: "Do not add copyright headers to files. Existing copyright headers are present only as a historical artifact and may be removed if appropriate permissions are acquired." This policy would fix all future projects and additions, and current projects with more tractable problems could clean things up on their own.
On 05/14/2013 04:06 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org <mailto:thierry@openstack.org>> wrote:
Mark Washenberger wrote: > Thanks so much for this link. This page looks like a much better > informed way of expressing my viewpoint, which boils down to > 1) Copyright headers in source files are not really necessary, and > often give an inaccurate view of the provenance of a file. > 2) Some folks, like me, find copyright headers in source files tedious > to maintain. > > 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). > > - a hacking check that prohibits copyright headers, with exceptions made > for all currently existing files > - 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 > > (these last two steps really aren't that crucial, since the goal from my > perspective is for folks to stop having to pay attention to copyright > headers while coding)
I'm not totally convinced that copyright headers in source files are so tedious that it's worth going through a complex transition to get rid of maintaining them.
Such transition may be something that is relatively easy to achieve in Glance, but I don't see it happening in larger code bases, and I'd prefer us to be coherent across all projects when it comes to things like file headers.
Do we need to force a big transition? The main advantage to me is to stop devoting any cycles to copyright maintenance. A big OpenStack-wide transition sounds like adding a lot of cycles.
Rather than bothering with consistent headers, we could have a consistent policy that says: "Do not add copyright headers to files. Existing copyright headers are present only as a historical artifact and may be removed if appropriate permissions are acquired." This policy would fix all future projects and additions, and current projects with more tractable problems could clean things up on their own.
That just sounds like debt to me, and that kind of cruft I don't think reflects well on the project, as then the copyright notices would be completely inaccurate (not just mostly inaccurate). Let's make a decision and do it (either ensure copyright notices are coming in appropriately, or get rid of them). Honestly, generating these patches to remove them can be nearly automated, and over the course of a week or two could all be moved through. Then we can lock it down with a hacking rule, and never have to deal with it again. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
That just sounds like debt to me, and that kind of cruft I don't think reflects well on the project, as then the copyright notices would be completely inaccurate (not just mostly inaccurate). Let's make a decision and do it (either ensure copyright notices are coming in appropriately, or get rid of them).
Making them completely accurate is an impossible task. The best you can get out of humans is the "sort-of-accurate" state that we maintain now. Is that really of sufficient value to spend the cycles paying attention to them?
Honestly, generating these patches to remove them can be nearly automated, and over the course of a week or two could all be moved through. Then we can lock it down with a hacking rule, and never have to deal with it again.
Yep, the patchsets would be *large*, but trivial to produce, trivial to review, and harmless to the code. - gabriel
Gabriel Hurley wrote:
That just sounds like debt to me, and that kind of cruft I don't think reflects well on the project, as then the copyright notices would be completely inaccurate (not just mostly inaccurate). Let's make a decision and do it (either ensure copyright notices are coming in appropriately, or get rid of them).
Making them completely accurate is an impossible task. The best you can get out of humans is the "sort-of-accurate" state that we maintain now. Is that really of sufficient value to spend the cycles paying attention to them?
Honestly, generating these patches to remove them can be nearly automated, and over the course of a week or two could all be moved through. Then we can lock it down with a hacking rule, and never have to deal with it again.
Yep, the patchsets would be *large*, but trivial to produce, trivial to review, and harmless to the code.
Sounds like a nice way to get to the top spot in contributors lists :) I agree there is value in cleaning it all up, and that the patch itself can be neatly automated... But gathering the necessary permissions from all copyright holders (which include a lot of companies) sounds like a non-trivial task, especially for larger projects. And if we don't do it completely, I'd rather not do it at all. So the options are: 1- not do anything 2- prevent new copyright notices 3- prevent new copyright notices and clean up old ones and personally I'm with Sean, I think it should be either (1) or (3) for consistency reasons. I think this is no longer a legal question (we established that they are not necessary), but a project consistency/cleanup effort discussion... so we should move it to openstack-dev, and discuss the three options on the table with all the devs. Markwash: would you introduce the topic there ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Thierry Carrez wrote:
I think this is no longer a legal question (we established that they are not necessary), but a project consistency/cleanup effort discussion... so we should move it to openstack-dev, and discuss the three options on the table with all the devs.
Actually I think there is one more legal question around this topic... Are we allowed to unilaterally remove those copyright mentions from the header, or do we absolutely need to seek permission from the original holder ? On the -dev list discussion Sean suggested a "flag day" after which if you didn't object the new format (without copyright mentions) would be policy... I wonder if we could actually remove those mentions at that point without formal approval. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:01:51PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
I think this is no longer a legal question (we established that they are not necessary), but a project consistency/cleanup effort discussion... so we should move it to openstack-dev, and discuss the three options on the table with all the devs.
Actually I think there is one more legal question around this topic...
Are we allowed to unilaterally remove those copyright mentions from the header, or do we absolutely need to seek permission from the original holder ?
On the -dev list discussion Sean suggested a "flag day" after which if you didn't object the new format (without copyright mentions) would be policy... I wonder if we could actually remove those mentions at that point without formal approval.
There are a couple of reasons why I think you can handle it this way, if you want to. I can go into detail if anyone's interested (especially if anyone disagrees with me). - RF
Richard, I would like to hear your reasoning here, as this strikes me as a bad idea. By my reading, there are strict restrictions on removing anyone's copyright or attribution notices (cf Section 4.2 of the Apache license). Thanks, Van ______________________________________ Van Lindberg VP, Intellectual Property, Rackspace van.lindberg@rackspace.com M: 214.364.7985 On 5/17/13 10:47 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:01:51PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
I think this is no longer a legal question (we established that they are not necessary), but a project consistency/cleanup effort discussion... so we should move it to openstack-dev, and discuss the three options on the table with all the devs. Actually I think there is one more legal question around this topic...
Are we allowed to unilaterally remove those copyright mentions from the header, or do we absolutely need to seek permission from the original holder ?
On the -dev list discussion Sean suggested a "flag day" after which if you didn't object the new format (without copyright mentions) would be policy... I wonder if we could actually remove those mentions at that point without formal approval. There are a couple of reasons why I think you can handle it this way, if you want to. I can go into detail if anyone's interested (especially if anyone disagrees with me).
- RF
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
Oops, I think I misunderstood what was being proposed here. It's to retroactively get rid of all past copyright notices? I agree that this cannot be reconciled with the notion of an Apache License 2.0 grant from the contributor (without getting permission from the copyright holder in question -- Red Hat hereby grants such permission if necessary). However, this brings up again the awkward issue of the OpenStack CLA, and the question of where the license(s) in OpenStack are actually coming from. Granted, it may be ultimately a trivial issue for anyone downstream, but I think it still matters. :) I am currently under the impression that contributions to OpenStack are effectively dual licensed: the contributor grants a special license to the OpenStack Foundation under the CLA covering all of the contributor's contributions, and, additionally, the contributor grants a license to the world under the Apache License 2.0 for each actual contribution to OpenStack. To the casual observer, the first license would seem to make the second license superfluous, or vice versa, depending on how you look at it. Admittedly I am making this conclusion from the *practice* (if I understand it correctly), at issue here, of expecting contributors to put a relevant copyright notice and license notice in each source file where they do not already exist, as well as the absence of any similar practice (to my knowledge) in any other open source project with a similar (or even different) CLA requirement. I do not believe that it is actually documented that contributions to OpenStack are thus dual licensed, however. It would be helpful, I think, to clear this up. I believe the CLA does nothing to prevent the OpenStack Foundation from removing all copyright notices from contributions to OpenStack. The OpenStack Foundation is also given authority under the CLA to distribute OpenStack under the Apache License 2.0 (as though that were the initial Apache License grant). It may be that the set of permissions the Foundation gets under the CLA are permissions it wishes to have in reserve but not exercise, but I have been assuming otherwise. The OpenStack Foundation bylaws, section 7.1, seem to me to support this assumption. There may be something uncomfortable about this, but it's probably better to deal with the discomfort. So when I said that I had a couple of reasons to justify what Thierry wished to do, I had misunderstood what was desired (not having read the thread on openstack-dev), but now that I think I understand it correctly, one of that couple of reasons is still relevant, namely that the OpenStack CLA gives the OpenStack Foundation the power to remove contributors' copyright notices, assuming the contributor has signed the OpenStack CLA. - Richard On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:27:25AM -0500, Van Lindberg wrote:
Richard,
I would like to hear your reasoning here, as this strikes me as a bad idea. By my reading, there are strict restrictions on removing anyone's copyright or attribution notices (cf Section 4.2 of the Apache license).
Thanks,
Van
______________________________________ Van Lindberg VP, Intellectual Property, Rackspace van.lindberg@rackspace.com M: 214.364.7985
On 5/17/13 10:47 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:01:51PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
I think this is no longer a legal question (we established that they are not necessary), but a project consistency/cleanup effort discussion... so we should move it to openstack-dev, and discuss the three options on the table with all the devs. Actually I think there is one more legal question around this topic...
Are we allowed to unilaterally remove those copyright mentions from the header, or do we absolutely need to seek permission from the original holder ?
On the -dev list discussion Sean suggested a "flag day" after which if you didn't object the new format (without copyright mentions) would be policy... I wonder if we could actually remove those mentions at that point without formal approval. There are a couple of reasons why I think you can handle it this way, if you want to. I can go into detail if anyone's interested (especially if anyone disagrees with me).
- RF
_______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 01:17:58PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
I believe the CLA does nothing to prevent the OpenStack Foundation from removing all copyright notices from contributions to OpenStack. The OpenStack Foundation is also given authority under the CLA to distribute OpenStack under the Apache License 2.0 (as though that were the initial Apache License grant). It may be that the set of permissions the Foundation gets under the CLA are permissions it wishes to have in reserve but not exercise, but I have been assuming otherwise. The OpenStack Foundation bylaws, section 7.1, seem to me to support this assumption. There may be something uncomfortable about this, but it's probably better to deal with the discomfort.
I was forgetting something, which is that the OpenStack CLA states that the contributor is granting the copyright license not just to the "Project Manager" (defined to mean the Foundation) but also "to recipients of software distributed by the Project Manager", reusing language in the original Apache CLAs. I suppose this implies that if the Foundation can remove copyright notices (placed by CLA signatories) so can anyone involved in the project (conceived of as something distinct from the Foundation). - RF
Richard Fontana wrote:
So when I said that I had a couple of reasons to justify what Thierry wished to do, I had misunderstood what was desired (not having read the thread on openstack-dev), but now that I think I understand it correctly, one of that couple of reasons is still relevant, namely that the OpenStack CLA gives the OpenStack Foundation the power to remove contributors' copyright notices, assuming the contributor has signed the OpenStack CLA.
To clarify, the question is: can we remove the copyright lines from the file headers and move them to a NOTICE file without the formal approval of the entity mentioned in the copyright line (i.e. as long as they don't object by $DATE, we consider that they consent). So it's not exactly removing the notices, and we would not do it if the affected entity formally objected to it. The reason I'm asking is that it seems to be the only practical way to operate, since some entities already declared that they agree with it only if *all* copyright notices are moved. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To clarify, the question is: can we remove the copyright lines from the file headers and move them to a NOTICE file without the formal approval of the entity mentioned in the copyright line (i.e. as long as they don't object by $DATE, we consider that they consent).
So it's not exactly removing the notices, and we would not do it if the affected entity formally objected to it. The reason I'm asking is that it seems to be the only practical way to operate, since some entities already declared that they agree with it only if *all* copyright notices are moved.
Oh, that was what I originally thought you meant. So getting back to what Van said to me: I would like to hear your reasoning here, as this strikes me as a bad idea. By my reading, there are strict restrictions on removing anyone's copyright or attribution notices (cf Section 4.2 of the Apache license). Section 4 says: You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: [...] c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works Leaving aside the question of who "You" is (as I think one must conclude 'You' is at some point the OpenStack Foundation, which as noted is unique in getting a more permissive license via the CLA), the issue is whether relocating a copyright notice from an individual source file to something like a NOTICE file is a failure to "retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that you distribute, all copyright ... notices from the Source form of the Work". I agree that it's not completely clear, but what I'd conclude is that you can nonproblematically relocate such copyright notices except possibly for two cases: 1) Copyright notices from Apache-licensed code taken from a project external to OpenStack (presumably not currently relevant) 2) Copyright notices where the named copyright holder is no longer actively involved in development (i.e., can't be expected to know what's going on) That isn't even necessarily based on an interpretation of the quoted language in the Apache License, since I think mere relocation from per-file to a global location is consistent with that clause in the Apache License, but independently whether it seems like a "bad idea" to use Van's phrase. If developers associated with the named copyright holder are actively involved in development at the time of the change from per-file to global copyright notices, I don't see a problem. Those developers are aware of what is going on and they have an opportunity to object. They similarly had an opportunity to voice an opinion on the issue when the earlier practice was put in place, or when they initially got involved in the project and found that it was in place and that they were expected to follow that earlier rule. - RF
So it's not exactly removing the notices, and we would not do it if the affected entity formally objected to it. The reason I'm asking is that it seems to be the only practical way to operate, since some entities already declared that they agree with it only if *all* copyright notices are moved.
I'm curious if anyone here knows legal reasons why it makes sense to provide this restriction ("don't remove my notice unless you remove all other notices from the file as well"). It sounds fair, but since no notice is required to retain copyright I'm not sure I really "get" it.
participants (6)
-
Gabriel Hurley
-
Mark Washenberger
-
Richard Fontana
-
Sean Dague
-
Thierry Carrez
-
Van Lindberg