Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-tc] Copyrights and License Headers in source files
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
Cheers, Mark.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com wrote:
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 thatin
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 copyrightsin
license headers, and it would be nice not to have to do thatanymore.
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:
This is fantastic. It might also be nice to split out the Headers stuff to its own page, so that we could have a long-lived url to put directly in HACKING files.
/me reads the legal-discuss thread he missed. . .
participants (2)
-
Mark McLoughlin
-
Mark Washenberger